DETAILED ACTION
1. 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 application filed 07/19/2023.
Claims 1-20 are presenting for examination. Claims 1, 14, and 20 are independent Claims.
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), and based on application # 202241039819 filed in INDIA on 07/11/2022, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statements (filed 07/19/2023, 01/11/2024, and 10/02/2024, and 06/10/2025) have been received, entered into the record, and considered.
Drawings
4. The drawings filed 07/19/2023 are accepted for examination purposes.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step1: determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If YES, proceed to Step 2A, broken into two prongs.
Step 2A, Prong 1: determine whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If YES, the analysis proceeds to the second prong.
Step 2A, Prong 2: determine whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If NOT, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B).
Step 2B: If any element or combination of elements in the claim is 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.
Regarding Claims 1-13:
Step 1 Analysis
Claims 1-13 are directed to a method and therefore fall into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2 Analysis
Independent Claim 1 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea:
“fusing at least two NN models from among the plurality of NN models based on at least one layer of each of the at least two NN models, to generate a fused NN model”; “identifying at least one redundant layer from the fused NN model”; and “removing the at least one redundant layer to generate an optimized NN model” (the limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas);
Independent Claim 1 recites the following additional elements, which, considered individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
“receiving a plurality of neural network (NN) models” (this is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified mere data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d))
The elements “neural networks” and “an electronic device” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 2, the limitation “determining that the at least one layer of each of the at least two NN models is directly connectable” encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The additional element “connecting the at least one layer of each of the at least two NN models in a predefined order of execution” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3, the limitations “determining that the at least one layer of each of the at least two of the plurality of NN models is not directly connectable” and “converting the at least one layer into a converted at least one layer that is a connectable format” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The additional element “connecting the converted at least one layer of each of the at least two NN models according to a predefined order of execution” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4, the limitations “the converting the at least one layer into the converted at least one layer that is a connectable format comprises: adding at least one additional layer in between the at least one layer of each of the at least two NN models,” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The additional element “the at least one additional layer comprising at least one of a pre-defined NN operation layer and a user-defined operation layer” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 5, the limitations “the determining that the at least one layer of each of the at least two NN models is directly connectable comprises: determining that an output generated from a preceding NN layer is compatible with an input of a succeeding NN layer” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 6, the limitations “the converting at least one layer into the converted at least one layer that is a connectable format comprises: transforming an output generated from a preceding NN layer to an input compatible with a succeeding NN layer” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 7, the limitation “the identifying the at least one redundant layer from the fused NN model comprises: identifying at least one layer in each of the at least two NN models being executed in a manner that an output of the at least one layer in each of the at least two NN models is redundant with respect to each other” encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 8, the limitation “each of the at least two NN models are developed in different frameworks” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 9, the limitation “the at least one layer of each of the at least two NN models comprises at least one of a pre-defined NN operation layer and a user-defined operation layer” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 10, the limitations “validating the fused NN model based on whether a network datatype and layout of the fused NN model is supported by an inference library, and whether a computational value of the fused NN model is above a predefined threshold value” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 11, the limitations “compressing the optimized NN model to generate a compressed NN model; encrypting the compressed NN model to generate an encrypted NN model; and storing the encrypted NN model in a memory” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 12, the limitation “the plurality of NN models are configured to execute sequentially” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 13, the limitation “implementing the optimized NN model at runtime of an application in the electronic device” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 14-19:
Step 1 Analysis
Claims 14-19 are directed to a system and therefore fall into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2 Analysis
Independent Claim 14 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea:
“fuse at least two NN models from among the plurality of NN models based on at least one layer of each of the at least two NN models, to generate a fused NN model”; “identify at least one redundant layer from the fused NN model”; and “remove the at least one redundant layer to generate an optimized NN model” (the limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas);
Independent Claim 14 recites the following additional elements, which, considered individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
“receive a plurality of neural network (NN) models” (this is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified mere data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d))
The elements “a system”, “neural networks”, “electronic device”, “at least one memory storing at least one instruction” and “at least one processor” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 15-19, the claims correspond to claims 2-4, 6, and 10. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 20:
Step 1 Analysis
Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium and therefore falls into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2 Analysis
Independent Claim 20 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea:
“fusing at least two NN models from among the plurality of NN models based on at least one layer of each of the at least two NN models, to generate a fused NN model”; “identifying at least one redundant layer from the fused NN model”; and “removing the at least one redundant layer to generate an optimized NN model” (the limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas);
Independent Claim 20 recites the following additional elements, which, considered individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
“receiving a plurality of neural network (NN) models” (this is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified mere data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d))
The elements “a non-transitory computer readable medium”, “computer readable program code or instructions” and “a processor”, “neural networks”, and “an electronic device” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chang et al. (US 20220066760).
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference 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. See MPEP 2123.
As to Claim 1:
Chang teaches a method for optimizing neural networks for on-device deployment in an electronic device (Abstract and [0009-0011]), the method comprising:
receiving a plurality of neural network (NN) models ([0070] and [0122-0123]);
fusing at least two NN models from among the plurality of NN models based on at least one layer of each of the at least two NN models, to generate a fused NN model (Abstract, [0009], [0029], [0038], [0043], [0134], and [0147]);
identifying at least one redundant layer from the fused NN model; and removing the at least one redundant layer to generate an optimized NN model ([0156-0158]).
As to Claim 2:
Chang teaches the fusing the at least two NN models comprises: determining that the at least one layer of each of the at least two NN models is directly connectable ([0029] and [0043]); and connecting the at least one layer of each of the at least two NN models in a predefined order of execution ([0134-0136]).
As to Claim 3:
Chang teaches the fusing the at least two of the plurality of NN models comprises: determining that the at least one layer of each of the at least two of the plurality of NN models is not directly connectable; converting the at least one layer into a converted at least one layer that is a connectable format; and connecting the converted at least one layer of each of the at least two NN models according to a predefined order of execution ([0029], [0038], [0043], and [0133]).
As to claim 4:
Chang teaches the converting the at least one layer into the converted at least one layer that is a connectable format comprises: adding at least one additional layer in between the at least one layer of each of the at least two NN models, the at least one additional layer comprising at least one of a pre-defined NN operation layer and a user-defined operation layer ([0009] and [0134]).
As to Claim 5:
Chang teaches the determining that the at least one layer of each of the at least two NN models is directly connectable comprises: determining that an output generated from a preceding NN layer is compatible with an input of a succeeding NN layer ([0152] and [0155]).
As to Claim 6:
Chang teaches the converting at least one layer into the converted at least one layer that is a connectable format comprises: transforming an output generated from a preceding NN layer to an input compatible with a succeeding NN layer ([0070] and [0133]).
As to Claim 7:
Chang teaches the identifying the at least one redundant layer from the fused NN model comprises: identifying at least one layer in each of the at least two NN models being executed in a manner that an output of the at least one layer in each of the at least two NN models is redundant with respect to each other ([0156-0158]).
As to Claim 8:
Chang teaches each of the at least two NN models are developed in different frameworks ([0069-0070]).
As to Claim 9:
Chang teaches the at least one layer of each of the at least two NN models comprises at least one of a pre-defined NN operation layer and a user-defined operation layer ([0134-0136]).
As to Claim 10:
Chang teaches validating the fused NN model based on whether a network datatype and layout of the fused NN model is supported by an inference library, and whether a computational value of the fused NN model is above a predefined threshold value ([0134] and [0147]).As to Claim 11:
Chang teaches compressing the optimized NN model to generate a compressed NN model; encrypting the compressed NN model to generate an encrypted NN model; and storing the encrypted NN model in a memory ([0126] and [0133]).
As to claim 12:
Chang teaches the plurality of NN models are configured to execute sequentially ([0038], [0043], and [0134-0135]).
As to Claim 13:
Chang teaches implementing the optimized NN model at runtime of an application in the electronic device ([0178]).As to Claims 14-19:
Refer to the discussion of Claims 1-4, 6, and 10 above, respectively, for rejections. Claims 14-19 are the same as Claims 1-4, 6, and 10, except Claims 14-19 are system Claims and Claims 1-4, 6, and 10 are method Claims.
As to Claim 20:
Refer to the discussion of claim1 above for rejection. Claim 20 is the same as Claim 1, except Claim 20 is a non-transitory computer readable medium Claim and Claim 1 is a method Claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on PTO 892 provided to Applicant is considered to have relevancy to the claimed invention. Applicant should review each identified reference carefully before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the prior art.
Contact information
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MAIKHANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-4093. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:00 am – 5:30 pm). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TAMARA KYLE can be reached at (571)272-4241.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MAIKHANH NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144