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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Amendment filed on 7/17/2026. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10 and 15 have been amended. Claims 3 and 4 have been canceled. Claims 1-2, and 5-15 are pending in the case. Claims 1, and 15 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 6-7 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined in Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If itis determined at step 2A, Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant is advised to consult the 2019 PEG for more details of the analysis.
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Claims 1-14 are drawn to a method, claim 15 is drawn to a system, therefore each of these claim groups falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (machine/products/apparatus, process/method, manufactures and compositions of mater; Step 1). Nonetheless, the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea without significant more (Step 2A, see below). Independent claims 1 and 15 are non-verbatim but similar in claim construction, hence share the same rationale that the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows:
As to claim 1:
Claim 1 recites “A computer-implemented method for customizing a pre-trained machine learning model which has been installed on a user device and which has a set of basic parameters which have been learnt using a labelled training dataset, the method comprising:
adding a plurality of adapter modules to the pre-trained machine learning model to create a local machine learning model, wherein each adapter module has a set of adapter parameters, wherein the pre-trained machine learning model is a neural network model comprising a plurality of layers, wherein the pre-trained machine learning model is trained based on the basic parameters, and wherein adding the plurality of adapter modules comprises associating at least one adapter module with at least one layer of the plurality of layers;
storing a dataset of user data, wherein the user dataset comprises unlabelled data; and
customizing the local machine learning model by: fixing the set of basic parameters and training, while the basic parameters are fixed, the local machine learning model to learn the set of adapter parameters using an unsupervised loss function on the stored user dataset, wherein the set of adapter parameters for the plurality of adapter modules is smaller than the set of basic parameters.”
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “customizing the local machine learning model by: fixing the set of basic parameters and training, while the basic parameters are fixed, the local machine learning model to learn the set of adapter parameters using an unsupervised loss function on the stored user dataset, wherein the set of adapter parameters for the plurality of adapter modules is smaller than the set of basic parameters” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Yes, the limitation “customizing the local machine learning model by: fixing the set of basic parameters and training, while the basic parameters are fixed, the local machine learning model to learn the set of adapter parameters using an unsupervised loss function on the stored user dataset, wherein the set of adapter parameters for the plurality of adapter modules is smaller than the set of basic parameters” is the abstract idea of a mathematical formula or equation, as directed to “a claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, this limitation “customizing a pre-trained machine learning model which has been installed on a user device”, and “adding at least one adapter module to the pre-trained machine learning model to create a local machine learning model” and “wherein the pre-trained machine learning model is a neural network model comprising a plurality of layers, wherein the pre-trained machine learning model is trained based on the basic parameters, and wherein adding the plurality of adapter modules comprises associating at least one adapter module with at least one layer of the plurality of layers” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “pre-trained machine learning model”, adapter module” and “local machine learning model” are used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
No, this limitation “computer-implemented” 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, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, this limitation “a set of basic parameters which have been learnt using a labelled training dataset” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform “learnt”. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
No, this limitation “wherein each adapter module has a set of adapter parameters” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
No, this limitation “storing a dataset of user data, wherein the user dataset comprises unlabelled data” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
This limitation “wherein each adapter module has a set of adapter parameters” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
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 when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
First, the additional elements directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claimed limitations generally link the judicial exception to the technology environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Second, the additional elements mere application of the abstract idea or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the limitations generally apply the use of a generic computer and/or process with the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
No, this limitation “customising a pre-trained machine learning model which has been installed on a user device”, and “adding at least one adapter module to the pre-trained machine learning model to create a local machine learning model” and “wherein the pre-trained machine learning model is a neural network model comprising a plurality of layers, wherein the pre-trained machine learning model is trained based on the basic parameters, and wherein adding the plurality of adapter modules comprises associating at least one adapter module with at least one layer of the plurality of layers” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “pre-trained machine learning model”, adapter module” and “local machine learning model” are used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
No, this limitation “computer-implemented” 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, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, this limitation “a set of basic parameters which have been learnt using a labelled training dataset” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform “learnt”. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network / performing repetitive calculations / electronic recordkeeping / storing and retrieving information in memory / electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
No, this limitation “wherein each adapter module has a set of adapter parameters” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network / performing repetitive calculations / electronic recordkeeping / storing and retrieving information in memory / electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
No, this limitation “storing a dataset of user data, wherein the user dataset comprises unlabelled data” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network / performing repetitive calculations / electronic recordkeeping / storing and retrieving information in memory / electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
This limitation “wherein each adapter module has a set of adapter parameters” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not eligible subject matter.
Therefore, in examining elements as recited by the limitations individually and as an ordered combination, as a whole the independent claim limitations do not recite what have the courts have identified as “significantly more”.
As to claim 15: (see rejection above as claim 1).
Furthermore, regarding dependent claims 2-14 which are dependent on claim 1, the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more as highlighted below in the claim limitations by evaluating the claim limitations under Step 2A and 2B:
Dependent claim 2
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Incorporates the abstract idea of independent claim.
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). this limitation “adding the at least one adapter module comprises adding at least one parallel adapter module, at least one serial adapter module, and/or at least one transformer adapter module” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “adapter module” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claim 6
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Incorporates the abstract idea of independent claim.
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No. this limitation “the plurality of adapter modules comprise sets of adapter modules with each adapter module in the set of adapter modules having adapter parameters associated with an adaptation environment” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “adapter module” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claim 7
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “select one of the adapter modules from the set of adapter modules and which has a set of switch parameters” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No, this limitation “adding a switching module which is configured to…” and “which are learnt when customizing the local machine learning model” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “machine learning” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claim 9
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Incorporate abstract idea of independent claim.
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claim 10
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “determined automatically when customizing the model and comprises defining a weighted sum of the plurality of adapter modules; defining a set of weighting parameters with each weighting parameter being associated with one of the plurality of adapter modules in the weighted sum” and “wherein the learnt set of weighting parameters determine which adapter modules are to be added” are the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). the limitation “determined automatically when customizing the model and comprises defining a weighted sum of adapter modules; defining a set of weighting parameters with each weighting parameter being associated with one of the adapter modules in the weighted sum” and “whereby the learnt set of weighting parameters determine which adapter modules are to be added” are the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation, as directed to “a claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No, the limitation “determined automatically when customizing the model and comprises defining a weighted sum of the plurality of adapter modules; defining a set of weighting parameters with each weighting parameter being associated with one of the plurality of adapter modules in the weighted sum” and “wherein the learnt set of weighting parameters determine which adapter modules are to be added” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “adapter module” and “machine learning” are used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional?
Dependent claim 11
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Incorporate abstract idea of independent claim.
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claim 12
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “inferring a first prediction from the sample…; performing at least one verification step; when the verification is successful, outputting the first prediction, and when the verification is not successful, outputting a second prediction which is inferred from the sample” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No, this limitation “receiving a sample to be analyzed by the customized machine learning model” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). this limitation “using the customized machine learning model”, “using the pre-trained machine learning model” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “machine learning” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No, this limitation “using the customized machine learning model”, “using the pre-trained machine learning model” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “machine learning” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d). this limitation “receiving a sample to be analyzed by the customized machine learning model” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network / performing repetitive calculations / electronic recordkeeping / storing and retrieving information in memory / electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
Dependent claim 13
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Yes, the limitation “the at least one verification step comprises at least one of verifying a likelihood of the sample itself and verifying an entropy value” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No, this limitation “associated with the model or the prediction” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “model” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claim 14
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Incorporates the rejection of independent claim.
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
The dependent claims as analyzed above, do not recite limitations that integrated the judicial exception into a practical application. In addition, the claim limitations do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). Therefore, the claims do not recite any limitations, when considered individually or as a whole, that recite what the courts have identified as “significantly more”, see MPEP 2106.05; and therefore, as a whole the claims are not patent eligible.
As shown above, the dependent claims do not provide any additional elements that when considered individually or as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified. Therefore, as a whole the dependent claims do not recite what the courts have identified as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception and does not recite, when claim elements are examined individually and as a whole, elements that the courts have identified as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 8 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 7/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in part.
Applicant’s argument for 103 has been considered and 103 rejections are withdrawn.
Regards to 101, Examiner maintains the rejections for the following reasons:
Applicant argues that the adapter modules are associated with layers of a neural network model and are clearly technical features that are not performed in the human mind. The Examiner is not citing this limitation under “mental processing” please see detailed rejections above.
Applicant further argues that there is practical application, namely, how to efficiently customize a pre-trained neural network on a resource-constrained user device without retraining the entire model. The Examiner disagrees that there is practical application nor improvement disclosed. The claims are directed to have a set of data being labeled in order to recognize the raw data that can be processed/labeled, especially there is no detailed claims as to what this is “unsupervised loss function” and what it does to the data.
Therefore the 101 rejection still stands.
Reason for Allowance:
Examiner has considered the claims in view of the searched arts and NPLs provided by the Applicant. After reviewing the art and performing a detailed search, the examiner finds that no combination of prior art reads on the claim as a whole. Specifically, no prior arts, either alone or in combination make the independent claims as a whole novel.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
“Communication-Memory-Efficient Decentralized Learning for Audio Representation”, Li et al , 7/22/2021. Smartphones and wearable devices produce a wealth of audio data, which cannot be accumulated in a centralized repository for learning supervised models due to privacy and bandwidth limitation. Federated learning provides a solution for learning model from decentralized data. But conventionally, it assumes the availability of labeled samples, whereas on-device data are generally unlabeled. For solving these issues, in this paper we propose the self-supervised learning approach in a federated manner without moving the unlabeled audio data. We try the audio albert as the self-supervised model, which achieves comparable performance to other pre-trained model but with smaller model size. The federated self-supervised framework has tremendous communication cost during training, and the transformer architecture utilized in audio albert has the problem of memory footprint, which are practical in loT devices. To address the first issue, we propose the Gradient Compression and CSR Encoding (GCE) to reduce communication requires each round. Furthermore, we apply the reversible idea to the transformer, which does not need to store the activation in each layer thus reduce the memory footprint. Moreover, we evaluate the quality of the self-supervised pre-training model under the federated setting, and the model achieves considerable performance in the downstream tasks by fine-tuning.
Dhanyamraju et al (US 20180373988 A1): The present disclosure relates to system(s) and method(s) for tuning an analytical model. The system builds a global analytical model based on modelling data received from a user. Further, the system analyses a target eco-system to identify a set of target eco-system parameters. The system further selects a sub-set of model parameters, corresponding to the set of target eco-system parameters, from a set of model parameters. Further, the system generates a local analytical model based on updating the global analytical model, based on the sub-set of model parameters and one or more PMML wrappers. The system further deploys the local analytical model at each node, from a set of nodes, associated with the target eco-system. Further, the system gathers test results from each node based on executing the local analytical model. The system further tunes the sub-set of model parameters associated with the local analytical model using federated learning algorithms.
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
In the interests of compact prosecution, Applicant is invited to contact the examiner via electronic media pursuant to USPTO policy outlined MPEP § 502.03. All electronic communication must be authorized in writing. Applicant may wish to file an Internet Communications Authorization Form PTO/SB/439. Applicant may wish to request an interview using the Interview Practice website: http://;www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
Applicant is reminded Internet e-mail may not be used for communication for matters under 35 U.S.C. § 132 or which otherwise require a signature. A reply to an Office action may NOT be communicated by Applicant to the USPTO via Internet e- mail. If such a reply is submitted by Applicant via Internet e-mail, a paper copy will be placed in the appropriate patent application file with an indication that the reply is NOT ENTERED. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
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 communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIMEI JIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm.
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, Mariela D Reyes can be reached at 571-270-1006. 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.
/HAIMEI JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2142
