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 .
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION: See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. The title of the invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless the title is provided in an application data sheet. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive, preferably from two to seven words. It may not contain more than 500 characters.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS: See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT: See MPEP § 310.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT. See 37 CFR 1.71(g).
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM: The specification is required to include an incorporation-by-reference of electronic documents that are to become part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5) and MPEP § 608.05. See also the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System posted on the USPTO website (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019LegalFrameworkPES.pdf) and MPEP § 502.05
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR. See 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 37 CFR 1.77.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(c). The specification should set forth the Background of the Invention in two parts:
(1) Field of the Invention: A statement of the field of art to which the invention pertains. This statement may include a paraphrasing of the applicable U.S. patent classification definitions of the subject matter of the claimed invention. This item may also be titled “Technical Field.”
(2) Description of the Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98: A description of the related art known to the applicant and including, if applicable, references to specific related art and problems involved in the prior art which are solved by the applicant’s invention. This item may also be titled “Background Art.”
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(d). A brief summary or general statement of the invention as set forth in 37 CFR 1.73. The summary is separate and distinct from the abstract and is directed toward the invention rather than the disclosure as a whole. The summary may point out the advantages of the invention or how it solves problems previously existent in the prior art (and preferably indicated in the Background of the Invention). In chemical cases it should point out in general terms the utility of the invention. If possible, the nature and gist of the invention or the inventive concept should be set forth. Objects of the invention should be treated briefly and only to the extent that they contribute to an understanding of the invention.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S): See MPEP § 608.01(f). A reference to and brief description of the drawing(s) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.74.
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(g). A description of the preferred embodiment(s) of the invention as required in 37 CFR 1.71. The description should be as short and specific as is necessary to describe the invention adequately and accurately. Where elements or groups of elements, compounds, and processes, which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art, they should not be described in detail. However, where particularly complicated subject matter is involved or where the elements, compounds, or processes may not be commonly or widely known in the field, the specification should refer to another patent or readily available publication which adequately describes the subject matter.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i) - (p).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE: See 37 CFR 1.72 (b) and MPEP § 608.01(b). The abstract is a brief narrative of the disclosure as a whole, as concise as the disclosure permits, in a single paragraph preferably not exceeding 150 words, commencing on a separate sheet following the claims. In an international application which has entered the national stage (37 CFR 1.491(b)), the applicant need not submit an abstract commencing on a separate sheet if an abstract was published with the international application under PCT Article 21. The abstract that appears on the cover page of the pamphlet published by the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the abstract that will be used by the USPTO. See MPEP § 1893.03(e).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art. If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives. Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps. Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING: See 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825 and MPEP §§ 2421 - 2431. The requirement for a sequence listing applies to all sequences disclosed in a given application, whether the sequences are claimed or not. See MPEP § 2422.01.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claim 1 comprise a very lengthy preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa V. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478,481 (CCPA 1951). Thus, it is not clear if many recitations of the preamble referred to in the "body" of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7-8 recite limitation “the steps.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 further recites “the steps of a method,” which should be corrected to “steps of the method.”
Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 7-8 are seems to be written in the improper dependent form or improper independent form. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 7 recites what seems to be a preamble for a poorly written independent claim. However, mere recitation of a machine in the preamble in a manner such that the machine fails to patentably limit the scope of the claim does not make the claim statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101, as seen in the Board of Patent Appeals Informative Opinion Ex parte Langemyr et al. (Appeal 2008-1495), http:llwww.uspto.govlweblofficesldcomlbpailitslfdO814 95.pdf. The hardware is not clearly functionally and structurally integrated with the software components. This connection should be clarified. The applicant is advised to rewrite the claims in a proper independent form.
Claim 8 recites “computer program element comprising computer program code.” However, the specification, failed to provide a proper definition for the claimed “computer program element.” Therefore, it is not clear what the program element it is pertains to and whether or not it’s includes signals. Since no clear and deliberate definition of "program element" can be found in the specification, based on the broadest interpretation, "program element" is read as both software or a medium (the electromagnetic or infrared) inclusive, such as instructions stored on a signal. Electromagnetic or infrared signals are non-statutory. Accordingly, such a signal cannot be patentable subject matter. See, In re Nuitjen, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-6 (and claims 7-8 once statutory) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are being rejected according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 5, p. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
The claims at high level disclose mathematical relationships and abstract information processing of a neural network arrangement using generic computer components.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category?
Yes. Claims 1-6 recite a method and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of a process.
The USPTO Guidance recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes) (Step 2A, Prong 1); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong 2). MPEP §§ 2106.04(a), (d).
Only if the claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look in Step 2B to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field; or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
First, determine whether the claims recite any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes). MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Claim 1 recites –
▪ method of a machine learning algorithm modelling a target function mapping inputs in an input domain to outputs in an output range, the machine learning algorithm including an array of processing nodes arranged in a network of layers of nodes including an input layer for receiving an input value, an output layer for providing an output value, and one or more intermediate layers between the input and output layers, each node in the processing set being outside the input layer receiving input from at least some adjacent nodes logically closer to the input layer via weighted connections between nodes, and each node being outside the output layer generating output to at least some adjacent nodes logically closer to the output layer via weighted connections between nodes (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) —Mathematical concepts, weighted sums, node activations, node connectivity, which can be performed by a human mind.)
▪ an adjustable weight for application to each input to the node, the adjustment weight being responsive to a threshold function applied to a value of the node input (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can manually determine and adjust weight by performing mathematical functions);
▪ a combination function for combining outputs of the threshold function (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can identify mathematical relationships); and
▪ a node bypass function for selectively mapping one or more of the inputs to the node to the output of the node, the method comprising iteratively training the machine learning algorithm to model the target function by adjustment, at each iteration, of at least weights of connections between at least a subset of the nodes, such that the nodes of the network are programmable during operation of the algorithm by adjustment of the threshold function and the bypass function so as to selectively emphasise subsets of nodes in the network (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can logically generate a mathematical model operating on numerical data by means of weighted connections and perform iterative logic to converge to a solution.)
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements listed above that relate to computing components are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions such as communicating and processing known data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. There is no technological problem that the claimed invention solves. Rather, the computer system is invoked merely as a tool. Accordingly, the 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.
Additional elements:
▪ nodes, layers, weighted connections, bypass paths (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il). Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a computer and associated computer network to obtain data, use data to identify other data, and comparing data, are some of the most basic functions of a computer. All of these computer functions are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. The method claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of displaying, processing and storing data using some unspecified, generic computer).
▪ training the machine learning algorithm (Amount to “Apply it”. Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f). Examiner’s note: high level application of using machine learning model is merely invoking a computer component to apply the exception).
Therefore, these claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept?
No. The claims do not include additional elements that alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements relating to computing components amount to no more than applying the exception using a generic computing components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computing component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed computer components (i.e., additional elements) includes any generic computing components that are capable of being programmed to communicate and process known data.
Additionally, the computer components are used for performing insignificant extra-solution activity and well understood, routine, and conventional functions. For example, the claimed server and user client device merely communicates and processes known data. Activities such as these are insignificant extra-solution activity and, therefore, well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); see also, e.g., OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price); CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754 (Consulting and updating an activity log); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Recording a customer’s order); Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017) (Identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price). Furthermore, limitations such as integrating account details are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log).
Independent system claim 1 contains the identified abstract idea and thus not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale above.
Dependent claims 2-6 further describe the abstract idea. Claims at the high level recite conventional mathematical modeling techniques perfumed on generic computer components
The additional elements of the dependent claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, as the dependent claims remain directed to a judicial exception, and as the additional elements of the claims do not amount to significantly more, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. As such, the claims 1-6 are not patent eligible.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 5-6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recite limitation “emphasise,” which should be corrected to “emphasize.”
Claims 3, 5-6 recite limitation “algorithm,” which should be corrected to “machine learning algorithm” for clarity and consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by SON et al. (US 20180285715).
Regarding claim 1, SON teaches a computer implemented method of a machine learning algorithm modelling a target function mapping inputs in an input domain to outputs in an output range, the machine learning algorithm including an array of processing nodes arranged in a network of layers of nodes including an input layer for receiving an input value, an output layer for providing an output value, and one or more intermediate layers between the input and output layers ([0085]), each node in the processing set being outside the input layer receiving input from at least some adjacent nodes logically closer to the input layer via weighted connections between nodes, and each node being outside the output layer generating output to at least some adjacent nodes logically closer to the output layer via weighted connections between nodes ([0084] “nodes included in neighboring layers may be selectively connected according to respective connections, e.g., which may or may not be weighted”, [0091]), wherein each node includes:
an adjustable weight for application to each input to the node, the adjustment weight being responsive to a threshold function applied to a value of the node input ([0084] “connection weightings between nodes of different hidden layers may be recursively adjusted until the corresponding neural network model is trained with a desired accuracy rate or below a maximum error rate”);
a combination function for combining outputs of the threshold function ([0089] “convolutions are performed simultaneously in respective parallel layers, the results of which are ultimately combined in a subsequent same layer”, [0135]); and
a node bypass function for selectively mapping one or more of the inputs to the node to the output of the node ([0154]), the method comprising iteratively training the machine learning algorithm to model the target function by adjustment ([0089] “connection weightings being adjusted through multiple iterations, such as through backpropagation training”, [0160] “not perform all of the convolution operations, by selectively skipping some kernels … some nodes corresponding to skipped kernels as not being active or not being provided respective inputs from a previous layer, the CNN 1102 may also be configured without the example nodes corresponding to the skipped kernels. Thus, the CNN may be selectively reconfigured, or differently configured, depending on whether or which nodes corresponding to which kernel elements or kernels are skipped), at each iteration, of at least weights of connections between at least a subset of the nodes, such that the nodes of the network are programmable during operation of the algorithm by adjustment of the threshold function ([0089] “respective convolutions performed on the input data, a pooling or sub-sampling layer configured to perform abstraction to map a plurality of pixels or values from a previous layer to a lesser number of pixels or values, one or more further convolutional layers that respectively generate features through respective convolutions, further pooling or sub-sampling layers … features transferred from one or more previous layers”, [0105], [0129]) and the bypass function ([0154]-[0155]) so as to selectively emphasise subsets of nodes in the network ([0161] “remaining nodes with hatching represent nodes that are not skipped or are active/considered nodes and thereby output values that may affect the ultimate output of the CNN 1102 and are provided input from the previous layer. Alternatively, the CNN 1102 may be configured only with the determined active/considered nodes without the skipped nodes”, [0161]-[0163]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andoni et al. (2019/0080240) in view of SON et al. (US 20180285715).
Regarding claim 1, Andoni teaches a computer implemented method of a machine learning algorithm modelling a target function mapping inputs in an input domain to outputs in an output range ([0080]-[0081]), the machine learning algorithm including an array of processing nodes arranged in a network of layers of nodes including an input layer for receiving an input value, an output layer for providing an output value, and one or more intermediate layers between the input and output layers ([0037], [0045], [0047]),
each node in the processing set being outside the input layer receiving input from at least some adjacent nodes logically closer to the input layer via weighted connections between nodes ([0027]), and
each node being outside the output layer generating output to at least some adjacent nodes logically closer to the output layer via weighted connections between nodes ([0048] “different topologies (which may include different input nodes corresponding to different input data fields if the data set includes many data fields) and different connection weights”, [0060]), wherein each node includes:
an adjustable weight for application to each input to the node ([0027]), the adjustment weight being responsive to a threshold function applied to a value of the node input ([0028]-[0029], [0036]);
a combination function for combining outputs of the threshold function ([0028], [0061]); and
the method comprising iteratively training the machine learning algorithm to model the target function by adjustment ([0038]), at each iteration, of at least weights of connections between at least a subset of the nodes ([0039]-[0040]), such that the nodes of the network are programmable during operation of the algorithm by adjustment of the threshold function
Andoni does not explicitly teach, however SON discloses a node bypass function for selectively mapping one or more of the inputs to the node to the output of the node ([0154]) and such that the nodes of the network are programmable during operation of the algorithm by adjustment of the threshold function and the bypass function so as to selectively emphasise subsets of nodes in the network ([0154]-[0155], [0161] “remaining nodes with hatching represent nodes that are not skipped or are active/considered nodes and thereby output values that may affect the ultimate output of the CNN 1102 and are provided input from the previous layer. Alternatively, the CNN 1102 may be configured only with the determined active/considered nodes without the skipped nodes”, [0161]-[0163]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Andoni to include bypass function as disclosed by SON. Doing so would improve a performance associated with a speed of processing the convolution operations (SON [0103]).
Regarding claim 2, Andoni as modified teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the target function is defined through example by a set of inputs each associated with an output (Andoni [0109], SON [0086], [0124]-[0125]).
Regarding claim 3, Andoni as modified teaches the method claim 1 wherein the algorithm is iteratively trained using backpropagation (Andoni [0039]-[0040], [0110], SON [0089]).
Regarding claim 4, Andoni as modified teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the machine learning algorithm is trained by an evolutionary algorithm whereby adjustments to the threshold functions and/or weights of connections between nodes are made by mutation and measurement of a degree of fitness of the machine learning algorithm to model the target function (Andoni [0026], [0036]-[0037], [0067]-[0068], [0072]-[0073], F1:170, SON [0154], [0159]).
Regarding claim 5, Andoni as modified teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the threshold function of at least a subset of nodes is adjusted during training in response to a measure of a degree of fitness of the algorithm for modelling the target function (Andoni [0072]-[0073], [0078]-[0079], [0106]).
Regarding claim 6, Andoni as modified teaches the method of claim 1 where the bypass function of at least a subset of nodes selectively maps in response to a measure of a degree of fitness of the algorithm for modelling the target function (Andoni [0026], [0030]-[0031], [0036]-[0037], SON [0154]-[0155], [0161]).
Regarding claim 7, Andoni teaches a computer system including a processor and memory storing computer program code for performing the steps of the method of claim 1 (Andoni Figure 1, [0141]-[0142]).
Claim 7 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 8, Andoni teaches a computer program element comprising computer program code to, when loaded into a computer system and executed thereon, cause the computer to perform the steps of a method as claimed in claim 1 (Andoni Figure 1, [0141]-[0142]).
Claim 8 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim(s) 6 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andoni et al. (2019/0080240) in view of Kung et al. (US 20190378017) or MATSUMOTO et al. (US 20180053085).
Regarding claim 6, Andoni as modified teaches the method of claim 1, as disclosed above, Kung additionally teaches where the bypass function of at least a subset of nodes selectively maps in response to a measure of a degree of fitness of the algorithm for modelling the target function ([0095], [0071], [0074]). MATSUMOTO discloses the same in [0047], [0185], [0215].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Andoni to include bypass function to a measure of a degree of fitness of the algorithm as disclosed by Kung or MATSUMOTO. Doing so provides a higher design, flexibility, accuracy, processing speed, and yield noticeable improvement in both network reduction and performance enhancement (Kung [0064]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is indicated on PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to POLINA G PEACH whose telephone number is (571)270-7646. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 - 5:30.
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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 571-270-1760. 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.
/POLINA G PEACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165 January 25, 2026