DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the amendments filed on January 1st, 2026. Claims 1-30 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 11, 19, and 29 are independent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-30 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
After detailed search, the cited arts, neither alone nor in combination, teach the claimed subject matter of claims 1, 11, 19 and 29, “generating final output data from the machine learning model architecture, wherein generating the final output data includes processing the base model output data and the expert model output data with an ensemble model of the machine learning model architecture”.
Pertinent art Wang et al. (“Deep Mixture of Experts via Shallow Embedding”, Wang et al., 11 Apr 2019) discloses adaptively sparsifying and recalibrating channel-wise features in each convolutional layer, but does not specifically disclose the claimed subject matter of claims 1, 11, 19 and 29.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Such claim limitations are:
“means for generating” in line 2 of claim 29.
“means for processing” in line 5 of claim 29.
“means for generating” in line 9 of claim 29.
“means for generating” in line 12 of claim 29.
“means for generating” in line 2 of claim 30.
“means for processing” in line 5 of claim 30.
“means for determining” in line 8 of claim 30.
“means for generating” in line 10 of claim 30.
Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to A computer-implemented method, therefore it falls under the statuary category of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, in part:
“determine a selected expert model, of a plurality of expert models, with which to process the base model output data” this encompasses the mental process of determining an expert model from observed expert models.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; the remaining limitations of the claim are as follows: “generating base model output data, the generating including processing input data with at least a portion of a base model of a machine learning model architecture”, “processing the base model output data with a routing model of the machine learning model architecture”, “generating expert model output data, wherein generating the expert model output data includes processing the base model output data with the selected expert model”, “generating final output data from the machine learning model architecture, wherein generating the final output data includes processing the base model output data and the expert model output data with an ensemble model of the machine learning model architecture” the limitations are an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept of significantly more than the abstract idea itself for the reasons set forth in step 2A prong 2 above. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, in part:
“processing intermediate feature data….in order to determine whether to early exit the base model” this encompasses the mental determination of whether to early exit a model based on observed feature.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; the remaining limitations of the claim are as follows: “from at least one layer of the base model with a gate model associated with the at least one layer” the limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept of significantly more than the abstract idea itself for the reasons set forth in step 2A prong 2 above. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated and further:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, in part:
“the base model output data processed by the routing model comprises the output from the gate model” a continuation of the abstract idea identified in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite any additional limitations, thus does not further recite any additional elements that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated and further:
Step 2A Prong 1: a continuation of the abstract idea identified in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; the remaining limitations of the claim are as follows:
“processing all layers of the base model to generate the base model output data” the limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept of significantly more than the abstract idea itself for the reasons set forth in step 2A prong 2 above. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated and further:
Step 2A Prong 1: a continuation of the abstract idea identified in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; the remaining limitations of the claim are as follows: “the gate model comprises a multi-layer perceptron model” the limitation is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept of significantly more than the abstract idea itself for the reasons set forth in step 2A prong 2 above. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further:
Step 2A Prong 1: a continuation of the abstract idea identified in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; the remaining limitations of the claim are as follows: “the base model comprises a deep convolutional neural network or a transformer neural network” the limitation is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept of significantly more than the abstract idea itself for the reasons set forth in step 2A prong 2 above. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further:
Step 2A Prong 1: a continuation of the abstract idea identified in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; the remaining limitations of the claim are as follows: “the routing model comprises a linear layer, a convolutional neural network model, or a multi-layer perceptron model” the limitation is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept of significantly more than the abstract idea itself for the reasons set forth in step 2A prong 2 above. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further:
Step 2A Prong 1: a continuation of the abstract idea identified in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; the remaining limitations of the claim are as follows: “the selected expert model comprises a convolutional neural network model or a transformer model” the limitation is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept of significantly more than the abstract idea itself for the reasons set forth in step 2A prong 2 above. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, in part:
“determine whether to process the second base model output data using the routing model” this encompasses the mental determination of whether to use the routing model to process observed data.
“determining not to process the second base model output data using the routing model” this encompasses the mental determination of not to use the routing model to process observed data
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; the remaining limitations of the claim are as follows: “generating second base model output data, wherein generating the second base model output data includes processing second input data with at least a portion of the base model”, “processing the second base model output data with a second gate model associated with a final layer of the base model”, “generating second final output data from the machine learning model architecture based on the second base model output data” the limitations are an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept of significantly more than the abstract idea itself for the reasons set forth in step 2A prong 2 above. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated and further:
Step 2A Prong 1: a continuation of the abstract idea identified in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; the remaining limitations of the claim are as follows: “processing the second base model output data using a fully connected layer” the limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept of significantly more than the abstract idea itself for the reasons set forth in step 2A prong 2 above. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 11:
Step 1: Claim 11 is directed to A computer-implemented method, therefore it falls under the statuary category of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, in part:
“performing clustering on features output from an intermediate layer, of the plurality of layers, to generate a plurality of training data subsets” this encompasses the mental clustering of observed features.
“route training data samples among the plurality of expert models” this encompasses the mental determination of how to route observed training data samples among experts.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; the remaining limitations of the claim are as follows: “training a base model comprising a plurality of layers using a training data set”, “training each respective expert model of a plurality of expert models on a respective training data subset of the plurality of training data subsets”, “training a router model to route training data samples among the plurality of expert models”, “training a router model to”, “training an ensemble model to generate machine learning model architecture output data based on base model output data generated by the base model and expert model output data generated by one or more of the plurality of expert models” the limitations are an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept of significantly more than the abstract idea itself for the reasons set forth in step 2A prong 2 above. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated and further:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, in part:
“minimizing a first loss component based on the plurality of training data subsets generated by the clustering and output from the router model” this limitation is a mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite any additional limitations, thus does not further recite any additional elements that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated and further:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, in part:
“minimizing a second loss component based on the output from the router model and an output from the expert model of the plurality of expert models with a lowest task loss” this limitation is a mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite any additional limitations, thus does not further recite any additional elements that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated and further:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, in part:
“the first loss component comprises a Kullback-Leibler divergence loss” this limitation is a mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite any additional limitations, thus does not further recite any additional elements that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated and further:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, in part:
“the second loss component comprises a cross-entropy loss” this limitation is a mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite any additional limitations, thus does not further recite any additional elements that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated and further:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, in part: “performing K-means clustering on the features output from the intermediate layer of the base model” this limitation is a mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite any additional limitations, thus does not further recite any additional elements that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated and further:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, in part:
“the K-means clustering generates a number of clusters K that is equal to a number of expert models in the plurality of expert models” this limitation is a mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite any additional limitations, thus does not further recite any additional elements that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated and further:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, in part:
“minimize a task loss based on the machine learning model architecture output data” this limitation is a mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; the remaining limitations of the claim are as follows: “training one or more gate models” the limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept of significantly more than the abstract idea itself for the reasons set forth in step 2A prong 2 above. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 19:
Step 1: Claim 19 is directed to A processing system, therefore it falls under the statuary category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, in part:
“determine a selected expert model, of a plurality of expert models, with which to process the base model output data” this encompasses the mental process of determining an expert model from observed expert models.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; the remaining limitations of the claim are as follows: “a memory comprising computer-executable instructions” the limitation is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). “one or more processors configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the processing system to perform an operation”, “generating base model output data, the generating including processing input data with at least a portion of a base model of a machine learning model architecture”, “processing the base model output data with a routing model of the machine learning model architecture”, “generating expert model output data, wherein generating the expert model output data includes processing the base model output data with the selected expert model”, “generating final output data from the machine learning model architecture, wherein generating the final output data includes processing the base model output data and the expert model output data with an ensemble model of the machine learning model architecture” the limitations are an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept of significantly more than the abstract idea itself for the reasons set forth in step 2A prong 2 above. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claims 20-28:
The rejection of claim 19 is further incorporated, the rejection of claims 2-10 are applicable to claims 20-28, respectively.
Regarding claim 29:
Step 1: Claim 29 is directed to A processing system, therefore it falls under the statuary category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, in part:
“determine a selected expert model, of a plurality of expert models, with which to process the base model output data” this encompasses the mental process of determining an expert model from observed expert models.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; the remaining limitations of the claim are as follows: “means for generating base model output data, the generating including processing input data with at least a portion of a base model of a machine learning model architecture”, “means for processing the base model output data with a routing model of the machine learning model architecture”, “means for generating expert model output data, wherein generating the expert model output data includes processing the base model output data with the selected expert model”, “means for generating final output data from the machine learning model architecture, wherein generating the final output data includes processing the base model output data and the expert model output data with an ensemble model of the machine learning model architecture” the limitations are an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept of significantly more than the abstract idea itself for the reasons set forth in step 2A prong 2 above. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 30:
The rejection of claim 29 is further incorporated, the rejection of claim 9 is applicable to claim 30.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 26th, 2026 (hereinafter “Remarks”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of the previous Office Action have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections of claims 1-30 have been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Argument 1:
“"[a] rejection of a claim should not be made simply because an examiner is uncertain as to the claim's eligibility."…Applicant respectfully submits that the present claims are clearly eligible for the reasons discussed herein, and that the present claims at least reflect a "close call" such that unpatentability cannot be established by a preponderance of the evidence, as required” (Remarks, page 10).
Examiners Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the MPEP states “It is essential that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim be established prior to examining a claim for eligibility. The BRI sets the boundaries of the coverage sought by the claim and will influence whether the claim seeks to cover subject matter that is beyond the four statutory categories or encompasses subject matter that falls within the exceptions.” See MPEP § 2106(II). The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims encompasses data processing, which can reasonably be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. The further use of computer equipment to accomplish the abstract idea can be considered an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2). Therefore, the rejections have not been made due to an uncertainty as to the claim’s eligibility, but instead based on the Alice/Mayo test under which the claims were found to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Argument 2:
“Applicant submits that the claims are eligible under Step 2A, Prong 2 because various features of the claims, in fact, integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application namely, performing (or training to perform) machine learning inference with a reduction in computational resources by bypassing unnecessary portions of the model while maintaining accuracy by ensembling the expert models with a base model, allowing inference to be performed on actual resource-constrained devices. In particular, Applicant submits that this practical application reflects an improvement to other technology or a technical field, namely the field of machine learning and, more specifically, the technology of practically implementing machine learning models on physical hardware devices.” (Remarks, page 13).
Examiners Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the MPEP states “Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.” See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1). Further, “To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology.” See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II). Here, the claims do not reflect the improvement as recited in the specification and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims encompasses data processing with additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
Argument 3:
“[H]ere, the features of the present claims reflect an improvement to a technology or technical field. Specifically, like the claims found eligible in Ex parte Chari, the present claims recite specific techniques that provide a specific improvement to machine learning and practical
implementation of machine learning models on physical devices.” (Remarks, pages 13-14).
Examiners Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the MPEP states “As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception is not in itself an inventive concept and does not guarantee eligibility: “The fact that a computer "necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm," is beside the point. There is no dispute that a computer is a tangible system (in § 101 terms, a "machine"), or that many computer-implemented claims are formally addressed to patent-eligible subject matter. But if that were the end of the § 101 inquiry, an applicant could claim any principle of the physical or social sciences by reciting a computer system configured to implement the relevant concept. Such a result would make the determination of patent eligibility "depend simply on the draftsman’s art," Flook, supra, at 593, 98 S. Ct. 2522, 57 L. Ed. 2d 451, thereby eviscerating the rule that "‘[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable,’" Myriad, 133 S. Ct. 1289, 186 L. Ed. 2d 124, 133).” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1983-84 (alterations in original).” See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A).
Argument 4:
“Here, like the reasoning rejected by the ARP in Desjardins, the Examiner argues that the present claims' use of machine learning "amounts to adding the words 'apply it' (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process."…Like the claimed technology in Desjardins, the claimed solution of the present disclosure improves machine learning by reducing computational resources and increasing model efficiency (e.g., by bypassing unnecessary portions of the model during processing while maintaining accuracy by ensembling the expert models with a base model). As such, the present claims provide an improvement to machine learning that integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application.” (Remarks, page 15).
Examiners Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees, here, as in example 48 of the Al-related SME examples 47-49 issued in 2024, which uses a generic deep neural network to apply a judicial exception of a mathematical process and was found to fall under MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2), as well as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers, the use of a generic machine learning model without details on how this the claimed improvement is accomplished also can be considered to fall under MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
Argument 5:
“[T]he Specification discusses how the particular arrangement of steps recited in the claims provide a technical improvement. See, e.g., Specification [0022]-[0032]. Thus, like the patents at issue in Cosmokey, the claims clearly provide a technical improvement to a technical field (e.g., a technical improvement to the field of processing complex data using machine learning on resource-constrained devices).” (Remarks, page 17).
Examiners Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the MPEP states “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II). here, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the improvement to data processing cannot be considered an improvement in a technology.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB Z SUSSMAN MOSS whose telephone number is (571) 272-1579. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Kakali Chaki can be reached on (571) 272-3719. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2122
/KAKALI CHAKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2122
Prosecution Insights