DETAILED ACTION
This action is made FINAL in response to the amendments filed on 6/10/2026
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 - 5, 7 - 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step One
The claims are directed to a method (claims 1 - 5 and 7) and a non-transitory machine-readable medium (claims 8 - 12 and 14). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
As to claims 8,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
utilizing a neural architecture search (NAS) method to obtain a searched result, wherein the searched result comprises a plurality of sub-networks, each of the plurality of sub-networks has a DNA sequence, and the DNA sequence records a model architecture of said each of the plurality of sub-networks;
For example, a human can mentally evaluate different possible network structure and select multiple distinct and separate sub-networks.
combining the plurality of sub-networks to generate a combined neural network, wherein the combined neural network is a supernet comprising the plurality of sub-networks; and
For example, a human can combine the selected distinct and separate sub-networks into a larger architecture.
in response to a utilization scenario of the edge device, switching a model
architecture of the dynamic neural network according to multiple DNA sequences, wherein the multiple DNA sequences correspond to the plurality of sub-networks, respectively.
For example, a human can switch the model architecture based on which architecture is the best fit for the distinct DNA sequences.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
fine-tuning the combined neural network to generate the dynamic neural
network, wherein the dynamic neural network is a supernet comprising a
trained version of the plurality of sub-networks;
deploying the dynamic neural network on an edge device;
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the fine-tuning or the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
The claim further recites a non-transitory machine-readable medium, a processor, and an edge device which is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recitation of DNA sequence and utilization scenario amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
fine-tuning the combined neural network to generate the dynamic neural
network, wherein the dynamic neural network is a supernet comprising a
trained version of the plurality of sub-networks;
deploying the dynamic neural network on an edge device;
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
The claim further recites a non-transitory machine-readable medium, a processor, and an edge device which is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recitation of DNA sequence and utilization scenario amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 9,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
the search result is a pareto-front result
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, a human can obtain a Pareto-front result by mentally comparing multiple options across different criteria and selecting the non-dominated options that are not worse than others in all criteria.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception
As to claims 10,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
the dynamic neural network is a supernet with a model weight, and the model weight is shared between the plurality of sub-networks included in the dynamic neural network.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, a human can mentally design a supernet by selecting multiple sub-networks and deciding that they share the same model weights.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception
As to claims 11,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
the step of combining the plurality of sub-networks to generate the combined neural network comprises:
for each convolution layer of the combined neural network, selecting a maximum kernel size of a convolution layer among multiple corresponding convolution layers of the plurality of sub-networks as a kernel size of said each convolution layer of the combined neural network.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, a human can mentally compare kernel sizes from multiple convolution layers and select the largest one for a combined network layer.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception
As to claims 12,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
the step of combining the plurality of sub-networks to generate the combined neural network comprises:
for each convolution layer of the combined neural network, selecting a maximum number of channels of a convolution layer among multiple corresponding convolution layers of the plurality of sub-networks as a number of channels of said each convolution layer of the combined neural network.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, a human can mentally compare channel counts of multiple layers and select the largest one for the combined network layer.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception
As to claims 14,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
the step of fine-tuning the combined neural network to generate the dynamic neural network comprises:
randomly sampling at least one candidate sub-network from the searched result;
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, a human randomly select (sample) at least one candidate sub-network from the searched result;
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim further recites:
training the at least one candidate sub-network for updating a model weight of the combined neural network until a quality of the combined neural network reaches a predetermined quality, to generate at least one trained
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
training the at least one candidate sub-network for updating a model weight of the combined neural network until a quality of the combined neural network reaches a predetermined quality, to generate at least one trained
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 1 has similar limitations as claim 8. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 2 has similar limitations as claim 9. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 3 has similar limitations as claim 10. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 4 has similar limitations as claim 11. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 5 has similar limitations as claim 12. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 7 has similar limitations as claim 14. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 & 103
The newly added limitations overcome the 102 and 103 Rejections and both rejections have been withdrawn,
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The 101 Rejection still has not been overcome. The claims are abstract and the steps in the claims can be completed with a mental process and/or generic computer components. Additionally, the steps in the claims do not describe an improvement of technology in any way.
The applicant argues:
As described in the pars [0020], [0032], [0033], and FIG. 6 of specification as filed, the effect of executing the steps in claim 1 is that the need for performing sub-network reloading operations and/or retraining operations can be eliminated, thereby significantly reducing the time consumption associated with the model updating and optimization. Thus, under Step 2A Prong 2, claim 1 includes additional element(s) that provide the improvements to the edge device on which the dynamic neural network deployed, and qualifies as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The examiner disagrees with the applicant’s position, as the arguments presented rely on limitations that are neither explicitly recited in the claims nor reasonably inferred from them. At no point in the pending claims does the applicant assert, describe, or even suggest the limitation of “performing sub-network reloading operations and/or retraining operations can be eliminated, thereby significantly reducing the time consumption associated with the model updating and optimization.” Rather, the applicant appears to have introduced this language as part of the argument, but such a limitation cannot be read into the claims when it is not supported by the actual claim language.
The applicant’s argument merely recites statements from the Specification regarding alleged improvements, but the claims do not recite an improvement to the functioning of the edge device or any other technology. Without clear support in the claim language, the examiner cannot give weight to arguments premised on these alleged limitations.
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 BRANDON S COLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5075. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30pm - 5pm EST (Alternate Friday's Off).
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, Omar Fernandez can be reached at 571-272-2589. 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./BRANDON S COLE/
/BRANDON S COLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights