DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment and response dated 1/2/2026 has been provided in response to the 10/2/2025 Office Action which rejected claims 1-20, wherein claims 1, 7, 9, 11, 14, and 19 have been amended. Thus, claims 1-20 remain pending in this application and have been fully considered by the examiner.
Accordingly, the rejection of the claims as stated in the previous office action is maintained and THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Response to Arguments
The rejection of the claims under 35 USC 112 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicants’ arguments regarding the rejection of claims under 35 USC
101 (see pages 10-11 of Applicants’’ remarks), the Applicants should please see the rejection below for clarification as it will substantially duplicate any response to the arguments in this section. However, the Applicants should also please note that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, which do not provide a specific improvement over prior systems based on the consideration of the claims as a whole. As such, the claimed invention is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis specific to Claim 13 is being presented below. However, the Applicants should please note that the analysis for claims 1 and 9 is similar to that of claim 13 and therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 13 recites:
A computing system comprising:
(a) an application model comprising a plurality of operators and a plurality of matrices associated with operators among the plurality of operators;
(b) a dimension-based search space (DBSS) comprising: a plurality of Named Nodes, each of the plurality of Named Nodes corresponding to a respective operator among the plurality of operators and comprising a Named DIM, the Named DIM corresponding to a matrix, among the plurality of matrices, associated with the respective operator, the Named DIM comprising a DIM Name, among a set of DIM Names included in the DBSS, associated with a dimension of the matrix associated with the respective operator;
(c) and, an application programming interface (API) usable by a compiler to
(d) determine, based on a query DIM Name, among the set of DIM Names, at least one of an attribute of an operator, among the plurality of operators of the application model, and an attribute of a matrix among the plurality of matrices of the application model;
(e) a processor; and, the compiler, wherein the compiler comprises a Model Analyzer and Compiler (MAC) configured to execute on the processor to
(f) determine a first operator among operators of the application model;
(g) determine a first matrix, among the plurality of matrices of the application model, associated with the first operator;
(h) determine a first DIM Name, among the set of DIM Names, corresponding to a first dimension of the first matrix; and,
(i) generate, in the DBSS, a first Named Node among the plurality of Named Nodes of the DBSS, the first Named Node corresponding to the first operator, the first Named Node comprising a first Named DIM corresponding to the first matrix, the first Named DIM comprising the first DIM Name.
Step 1:
The claim falls within a statutory category of being a system.
Step 2A – Prong 1:
The claim recites limitations of:
(d) determine, based on a query DIM Name, among the set of DIM Names, at least one of an attribute of an operator, among the plurality of operators of the application model, and an attribute of a matrix among the plurality of matrices of the application model;
(f) determine a first operator among operators of the application model;
(g) determine a first matrix, among matrices of the application model, associated with the first operator;
(h) determine a first DIM Name, among the set of DIM Names, corresponding to a first dimension of the first matrix; and,
(i) generate, in the DBSS, a first Named Node among the plurality of Named Nodes of the DBSS, the first Named Node corresponding to the first operator, the first Named Node comprising a first Named DIM corresponding to the first matrix, the first Named DIM comprising the first DIM Name;
Limitations (d) and (f)-(i) are limitations that, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper, i.e. “determining”, and “generating” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A- Prong 2:
The claim recites the additional elements of (a)-(c) and (e), which are all recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements of limitations (a)-(c) and (e) merely recite generic computer and computer components and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., simply adding extra-solution activity or generic computer components does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Additionally, claims 2, 10, and 14 recite “wherein the method of the computing system determining the first operator and the first matrix comprises determining, by the computing system, the first operator and the first matrix by analyzing a directed acyclic graph representing the application model.” “The method of the computing system” and “by the computing system” are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. “Determining the first operator and the first matrix comprises determining, by the computing system, the first operator and the first matrix by analyzing a directed acyclic graph representing the application model” recites additional mental processes, as “determining”, and “generating” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these claim fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and are ineligible.
Additionally, claims 3, 11, and 15 recite “determining, by the computing system, a second operator among the plurality of operators of an application model; determining, by the computing system, a second matrix, among the plurality of matrices of the application model, associated with the second operator; determining, by the computing system, a second DIM Name, among the set of DIM Names, corresponding a first dimension of the second matrix; and, generating, by the computing system, in the DBSS, a second Named Node among the plurality of Named Nodes of the DBSS, the second Named Node corresponding to the second operator, the second Named Node comprising a second Named DIM corresponding to the second matrix, the second Named DIM comprising the second DIM Name” recite additional mental processes, as “determining”, and “generating” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion with the aid of pen and paper. “By the computing system” is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, these claim fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and are ineligible.
Additionally, claims 7, 12, and 19 recite “determining, by the computing system, using interfaces among the API of the DBSS, based on the query DIM Name, that the first operator and the second operator, among the plurality of operators of the application model, form a pipeline.” “By the computing system, using interfaces among the API of the DBSS” are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. “Determining, based on the query DIM Name, that the first operator and a second operator, among the plurality of operators of the application model, can form a pipeline” recites additional mental processes, as “determining”, and “generating” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these claim fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and are ineligible.
Additionally, claim 4 recites “wherein the method of the computing system determining the second DIM Name comprises determining, by the computing system, the second DIM Name to be the first DIM Name.” “By the computing system” and “the method of the computing system” are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. “Determining, the second DIM Name to be the first DIM Name” recites additional mental processes, as “determining”, and “generating” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these claim fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and are ineligible.
Additionally, claim 5 recites “determining, by the computing system, a second DIM Name, among the set of DIM Names, corresponding to a second dimension of the first matrix, the second DIM Name different from the first DIM Name.” “By the computing system” is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. “Determining, a second DIM Name, among the set of DIM Names, corresponding to a second dimension of the first matrix, the second DIM Name different from the first DIM Name” recites additional mental processes, as “determining” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these claim fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and are ineligible.
Additionally, claims 6 and 18 recite “wherein the API of the DBSS comprises: a first interface to determine, based on the query DIM Name, an attribute of a second operator among the plurality of operators of the application model, the second operator associated with a matrix having a first dimension corresponding to the query DIM Name; and, a second interface to determine, based on the query DIM Name, an attribute of a second matrix among the plurality of matrices of the application model, the second matrix having a second dimension corresponding to the query DIM Name”. “The API of the DBSS”, “ a first interface” and “a second interface” are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. “Determine, based on the query DIM Name, an attribute of a second operator among the plurality of operators of the application model, the second operator associated with a matrix having a first dimension corresponding to the query DIM Name” and “determine, based on the query DIM Name, an attribute of a second matrix among the plurality of matrices of the application model, the second matrix having a second dimension corresponding to the query DIM Name” recite additional mental processes, as “determining” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these claim fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and are ineligible.
Additionally, claim 8 recites “wherein the plurality of operators of the application model correspond to operators of a neural network and the plurality of matrices of the application model correspond to matrices of the neural network” recite additional mental processes, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these claim fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and are ineligible.
Additionally claim 16 recites “wherein the MAC configured to execute on the processor to determine the second DIM Name comprises the MAC further configured to execute on the processor, ” which is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. “To determine the second DIM Name to be the first DIM Name” recites an additional mental process, as “determining” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these claim fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and are ineligible.
Additionally, claim 17 recites “wherein the MAC is further configured to execute on the processor,” which is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. “To determine a second DIM Name, among the set of DIM Names, corresponding to a second dimension of the first matrix, the second DIM Name different from the first DIM Name” recites an additional mental process, as “determining” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these claim fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and are ineligible.
Additionally, claim 20 recites “wherein the plurality of operators of the application model correspond to operators of a convolutional neural network” recite additional mental processes, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENECA SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1651. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:30PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hyung S Sough can be reached at 571-272-6799. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHENECA SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2192
/S. SOUGH/
spe, art unit 2192
Prosecution Insights