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. CLAIM INTERPRETATION The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (FP 7.30.03) (f) ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION-An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action . Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. (FP 7.30.05) This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a training unit, an obtaining unit, a first determining unit, a second determining unit and a building unit in claim 19. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. (FP 7.30.06) 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 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 it is 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 According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1- 9 , 1 0-1 8 , 1 9, 20 are directed to a method, a node, a node and a computer program product of building a ML model. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Step 2A, Step 2A, Prong 1 Following the determination of whether or not the claims fall within one of the four categories (Step 1), it must be determined if the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g. mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity) (Step 2A, Prong 1). In this case, the claims are determined to recite a judicial exception as explained below. Regarding Claims 1, 10 and 1 9, 20 these claims recite training a ML model using a set of input data, wherein the ML model includes a plurality of layers and each layer includes a plurality of filters, and wherein the set of input data includes class labels; obtaining a set of output data from training the ML model, wherein the set of output data includes class probabilities values; determining, for each layer in the ML model, by using the class labels and the class probabilities values, a working value for each filter in the layer; determining, for each layer in the ML model, a dominant filter, wherein the dominant filter is determined based on whether the working value for the filter exceeds a threshold; and building a subset ML model based on each dominant filter for each layer, wherein the subset ML model is a subset of the ML model. The claims recite a mental process. As set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer”. These are recited at a high level such that they could be performed as a human user performing these functions, simply using a computer as a tool-see spec, [0051-005 4 ], Fig. 5 , 6 . Thus, the claim recites abstract ideas. Step 2A, Prong 2 Following the determination that the claims recite a judicial exception, it must be determined if the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception (Step 2A, Prong 2). In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception as explained below. In Prong Two, a claim is evaluated as a whole to determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. A claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception, and thus is patent eligible, if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The claims recite an abstract idea and further the claims as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). Regarding Claims 1 , 10, 19, 20 these claims This limitation recites using one or more neural networks as a tool to perform an abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application . MPEP 2106.05(f). ) This limitation is understood to be generic computer equipment and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.0S(f)) Step 2B Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed to a judicial exception, it must be determined if the claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons given above in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis. Furthermore, each additional element identified above as being insignificant extra-solution activity is also well-known, routine, conventional as described below. Claims 1, 10, 19 and 20 : The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that 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 amount to no more than generic computing components and field of use/technological environment which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The underlying concept merely receives information, analyzes it, and store the results of the analysis – this concept is not meaningfully different than concepts found by the courts to be abstract (see Electric Power Group , collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis; see Cybersource , obtaining and comparing intangible data; see Digitech , organizing information through mathematical correlations; see Grams , diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results; see Cyberfone , using categories to organize store and transmit information; see Smartgene , comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, claim 1 recites the additional elements of “training…”, “obtaining…” “determining…” , “ determining…”, “building…” These elements are recited at a high level of generality and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the computer art. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, without an inventive concept, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Step 2A/2 B Prong 2 Dependent Claims Regarding to claim 2 , 11 Claim 2 , 11 merely recite other additional elements that define storing the data which performing generic functions that when looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are not patent eligible. Regarding to claim 3-4 , 7, 1 2-13, 16 Claim 3-4 , 7, 1 2-13, 16 merely recite other additional elements that define the model which performing generic functions that when looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are not patent eligible. Regarding to claim 5-6 , 1 4-15 Claim 5-6 , 1 4-15 merely recite other additional elements that define the value for the filter and define the filter which performing generic functions that when looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are not patent eligible. Regarding to claim 8-9 , 1 7-18 Claim 8-9 , 1 7-18 merely recite other additional elements that define using the model which performing generic functions that when looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim 5-6 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 5-6 and 14-15 recite formula of and T here are variables not defined in the claims, such as α, i, N, γ, | | α || sub.1. Further it seems α.sub.1…N since α. sub.i is in the equation. Therefore it was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, t he claims cannot be examined. 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. Claims 5-6 and 14-15 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 5-6 and 14-15 recite formula of and Th e limitation s are indefinite because there are variables not defined in the claims , such as α , i, N, γ , | | α || sub.1. Further it seems α.sub.1…N since α. sub.i is in the equation. Therefore t he scope of the claim limitations cannot be determined. The claims cannot be examined. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim s 1- 7, 10-16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (Liu) CN 111626330 in view of Li et al. (Li) US 2019/0340510 In regard to claim 1 , Liu disclose A computer-implemented method for building a machine learning (ML) model, the method comprising : (abstract, “ (1) training YOLOv3 model to generate reference model based on training image data set, using the backbone network Darknet-53 of YOLOv3 to extract features of the image , deep feature through the upper sampling and shallow feature tensor splicing to generate multi-scale feature map; ” generate reference model ) training a ML model using a set of input data, wherein the ML model includes a plurality of layers and each layer includes prunings , and wherein the set of input data includes class labels; ( (1) training YOLOv3 model to generate reference model based on training image data set, using the backbone network Darknet-53 of YOLOv3 to extract features of the image , deep feature through the upper sampling and shallow feature tensor splicing to generate multi-scale feature map;” ( 2) performing feature compression along the spatial dimension of the feature map in the step (1); compressing each two-dimensional feature channel into a real number with a global receptive field; the output dimension and the input feature channel number are matched; generating weight for each feature channel through the gating mechanism of the circular neural network, then weighting the weight to the previous characteristic; finishing the re-calibration of the original characteristic on the channel dimension; A s a preference, the step (2) comprises: (2.1) the step (1) to generate the multi-scale feature map for adaptive sampling, expanding the characteristic diagram of W* H; (2.2) performing characteristic compression along the space dimension, compressing each two-dimensional characteristic channel into a real number with a global receptive field; the output dimension and the input characteristic channel number are matched; the specific operation is as follows: wherein W and H are respectively characteristic graph width and height; xc (i, j) represents the appointed element coordinate in the c- th layer channel is (i, j); zc represents the output of the c- th layer channel after being compressed; it is a scalar quantity; .. ” “ As a preference, in the step (5) introducing softmax function with temperature parameter and knowledge distillation algorithm, the basic model as the teacher network, pruning the model as the student network for migration learning; The softmax function is defined as: wherein, zi is the output of neural network i type target detection , .Math . jexp ( zj /T) represents the sum of all kinds of output, the ratio of the two is qi, representing the probability value of the ith target, T is temperature parameter; The loss of the teacher's bounded regression is defined as: wherein m is the edge distance, yregm represents the real label , Rs is the regression output of the YOLOv3 network after pruning; Rt is the prediction of the initial network, v and is a super-parameter, Ls is a binary cross entropy loss, Lregm is the total regression loss, Lhint is an indication learning, accelerating distillation by indicating learning, using the middle of the teacher as prompting learning to help the training process and improving the distillation effect of the student, using the L2 distance between the characteristic vector V and Z: wherein Z represents the middle layer selected as the prompt in the teacher network; V represents the output of the guide layer in the student network. ” training the ML model using a set of input data , the ML model includes a plurality of layers and each layer includes pruning functions , and the set of input data has label s) obtaining a set of output data from training the ML model, wherein the set of output data includes class probabilities values; ( “ As a preference, in the step (5) introducing softmax function with temperature parameter and knowledge distillation algorithm, the basic model as the teacher network, pruning the model as the student network for migration learning; The softmax function is defined as: wherein, zi is the output of neural network i type target detection , .Math . jexp ( zj /T) represents the sum of all kinds of output, the ratio of the two is qi, representing the probability value of the ith target, T is temperature parameter; The loss of the teacher's bounded regression is defined as: wherein m is the edge distance, yregm represents the real label , Rs is the regression output of the YOLOv3 network after pruning; Rt is the prediction of the initial network, v and is a super-parameter, Ls is a binary cross entropy loss, Lregm is the total regression loss, Lhint is an indication learning, accelerating distillation by indicating learning, using the middle of the teacher as prompting learning to help the training process and improving the distillation effect of the student, using the L2 distance between the characteristic vector V and Z: wherein Z represents the middle layer selected as the prompt in the teacher network; V represents the output of the guide layer in the student network. ” “ step A, as shown in FIG. 2 and FIG. 3, training YOLOv3 model based on training image data set, generating YOLOv3 reference model, using the YOLOv3 backbone network Darknet-53 extraction image characteristic, the deep characteristic is spliced by the upper sampling and the superficial characteristic tensor to generate the multi-scale characteristic diagram; The method specifically comprises: step A1, using the cross entropy loss function as the optimization target of the model training; calculating the loss function gradient by reverse propagation BP algorithm and updating the model parameter; global loss is Ltotal = ρ Lclass + τ Lreg wherein, the ρ and τ are hyper-parameter; Lclass is classified loss, expressed as: wherein D is the training image data set; pc (d) represents the prediction proba bility of the data set image is classified as c, is the data centralized image is classified as 0-1 binary distribution of c; C is the category number; ” g enerate output from the ML model training and the output ha ve the prediction probabilit ies of the data set image classified ) determining, for each layer in the ML model, by using the class labels and the class probabilities values, a working value for each filter in the layer; ( (4) introducing the γ coefficient of the BN layer in the backbone network into the pruning target function for combined training; normalizing and ordering the training after-γ coefficient; according to the trimming threshold, removing the channel from the model lower than the threshold value of the γ from the model; pruning the YOLOv3 model; (5) using the model of pruning in the step (4) as the student model; using the benchmark model as the teacher network for knowledge distillation; using the soft label generated by the teacher model to guide the student model to train; and using the indication learning to accelerate the distillation speed; (6) inputting the image to be detected to the student model trained in the step (5) to detect the target. ” “ step D, introducing the γ layer in the backbone network into the pruning target function for combined training; normalizing and ordering the training back γ coefficient; according to the trimming th reshold, removing the channel with γ the threshold value according to the channel from the model; pruning the YOLOv3 model; The method specifically comprises: step D1, introducing the γ layer in the backbone network into the pruning target function for joint training, the conversion function of the BN layer is as follows: in the formula, zin, zout is input and output of BN μB , is the average value and variance of the input, belongs to a correction parameter close to 0, preventing the sub-is 0, γ is scale factor (scale factor) and β (offset), can linearly convert the output of the BN layer into any scale, recovering the characteristic distribution of the original input, then representing the contribution value of each convolution layer for the input characteristic; measuring the importance of the corresponding convolution layer; therefore, γ as pruning parameter; the pruning target function is adjusted as: wherein, Ws is the weight capable of training, xs , ys represents the input and output of the training, n is a hyper-parameter, is Γ set of the coefficient γ the backbone network, f (.) is the loss function of YOLOv3, g (γ) is a penalty function of guiding sparse, wherein g (γ) = |γ |, namely L1 is regularization; step D2, before training, the γ coefficient presents a positive distribution; after training, the γ coefficient is approaching to 0; normalizing and ordering the training after-γ coefficient; according to the trimming th reshold, removing the channel from the model lower than the threshold value of the γ from the model; cutting the branch of the channel without adding operation to the backbone network; ” Identifying trimming threshold for each layer in the ML model, by using the labels and the class probabilities values ) wherein the dominant filter is determined based on whether the working value for the filter exceeds a threshold; ( “ a backbone network compression module, for introducing the γ layer in the backbone network into the pruning target function for combined training; normalizing and ordering the trained γ coefficient; according to the trimming th resh old, removing the channel from the model lower than the threshold value of the γ from the model; pruning the YOLOv3 model; and taking the pruning model as the student model; using the reference model as the teacher network for knowledge distillation; teaching the soft label generated by the teacher model to guide the student model to train; and using the indication learning to accelerate the distillation speed; ” here it disclose the trimming function trigger condition of the filter which is the trimming threshold, removing the channel from the model lower than the threshold value of the γ ) and building a subset ML model based on each dominant filter for each layer, wherein the subset ML model is a subset of the ML model. ( “ (1) training YOLOv3 model to generate reference model based on training image data set, using the backbone network Darknet-53 of YOLOv3 to extract features of the image , deep feature through the upper sampling and shallow feature tensor splicing to generate multi-scale feature map;” generate a student model by trimming the teacher model based on the filter for each layer, the student model is a subset of the teacher model ) But Liu failed to explicitly disclose “ each layer includes a plurality of filters ; determining, for each layer in the ML model, a dominant filter ; ” Li disclose each layer includes a plurality of filters ; ([00 10] [0027] -[ 0034] each layer has filters) determining, for each layer in the ML model, a dominant filter ; ([ 00 10][ 0027]-[0034] each layer has filters and a filter is identified based on a condition ) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Li’s ML model training into Liu ’s invention as they are related to the same field endeavor of model training and learning. The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because Li ’s ML model with filters in each layer would help to provide more model training control into Liu ’s system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made that provid ing filters in each layer would help to improve model training efficiency. In regard to claim 2 , Liu and Li disclose The method according to claim 1, But Liu fail to explicitly disclose “ further comprising: storing the subset ML model in a database. ” Li disclose further comprising: storing the subset ML model in a database. ([0009] -[ 0018] [0020]-[0024] model is stored at a storage) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Li’s ML model training into Liu’s invention as they are related to the same field endeavor of model training and learning. The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because Li’s ML model with data storage would help to provide more model storing into Liu’s system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made that provid ing storage to store the model would help to improve model training efficiency. In regard to claim 3 , Liu and Li disclose The method according to claim 1, Liu disclose wherein the ML model is a teacher model and the subset ML model is a subset teacher model. ( “ As a preference, in the step (5) introducing softmax function with temperature parameter and knowledge distillation algorithm, the basic model as the teacher network, pruning the model as the student network for migration learning; ” a teacher model and a student model which is a subset of the teacher model) In regard to claim 4 , Liu and Li disclose The method according to claim 1, Liu disclose wherein the ML model and the subset ML model are one of: a neural network, a convolutional neural network (CNN), and a artificial neural network (ANN). “ generating weight for each characteristic channel through the gating mechanism of the circulating neural network; ” a neural network) In regard to claim 5 , Liu and Li disclose The method according to claim 1, Liu disclose wherein the working value for each filter in the layer is determined according to: where: fi represents the output of each filter based on training using the set of input data; and y represents the class probabilities values from the obtained set of output data. ( “ step D1, introducing the γ layer in the backbone network into the pruning target function for joint training, the conversion function of the BN layer is as follows: in the formula, zin, zout is input and output of BN μB , is the average value and variance of the input, belongs to a correction parameter close to 0, preventing the sub-is 0, γ is scale factor (scale factor) and β (offset), can linearly convert the output of the BN layer into any scale, recovering the characteristic distribution of the original input, then representing the contribution value of each convolution layer for the input characteristic; measuring the importance of the corresponding convolution layer; therefore, γ as pruning parameter; the pruning target function is adjusted as: wherein, Ws is the weight capable of training, xs , ys represents the input and output of the training, n is a hyper-parameter, is Γ set of the coefficient γ the backbone network, f (.) is the loss function of YOLOv3, g (γ) is a penalty function of guiding sparse, wherein g (γ) = |γ |, namely L1 is regularization; ” it disclose a pruning target function with a equation. The scope of the claim cannot be determined since there are undefined variables ) In regard to claim 6 , Liu and Li disclose The method according to claim 1, Liu disclose wherein the dominant filter for each layer is determined according to : where: fi represents the output of each filter based on training using the set of input data; and y represents the class probabilities values from the obtained set of output data. ( “ step D1, introducing the γ layer in the backbone network into the pruning target function for joint training, the conversion function of the BN layer is as follows: in the formula, zin, zout is input and output of BN μB , is the average value and variance of the input, belongs to a correction parameter close to 0, preventing the sub-is 0, γ is scale factor (scale factor) and β (offset), can linearly convert the output of the BN layer into any scale, recovering the characteristic distribution of the original input, then representing the contribution value of each convolution layer for the input characteristic; measuring the importance of the corresponding convolution layer; therefore, γ as pruning parameter; the pruning target function is adjusted as: wherein, Ws is the weight capable of training, xs , ys represents the input and output of the training, n is a hyper-parameter, is Γ set of the coefficient γ the backbone network, f (.) is the loss function of YOLOv3, g (γ) is a penalty function of guiding sparse, wherein g (γ) = |γ |, namely L1 is regularization; ” it disclose a pruning target function with a equation. The scope of the claim cannot be determined since there are undefined variables ) In regard to claim 7 , Liu and Li disclose The method according to claim 3, Liu disclose wherein the subset teacher model is used as a student ML model. (“ As a preference, in the step (5) introducing softmax function with temperature parameter and knowledge distillation algorithm, the basic model as the teacher network, pruning the model as the student network for migration learning; ” the student model is a subset of the teacher model) In regard to claims 10-1 6 , claims 10-1 6 are node claims corresponding to the method claims 1- 7 above and, therefore, are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claims 1- 7 . In regard to claim 19, claim 19 is a node claim corresponding to the method claim 1 above and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claim 1. In regard to claim 20, claim 20 is a computer program product claim corresponding to the method claim 1 above and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claim 1. Claim s 8-9 , 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (Liu) CN 111626330 and Li et al. (Li) US 2019/0340510 as applied to claim 1, further in view of Doraiswami et al. ( Doraiswami ) US 9582618 In regard to claim 8 , Liu and Li disclose The method according to claim 1, But Liu and Li fail to explicitly disclose “ further comprising: using the subset ML model to detect faults in one or more network nodes in a network. ” Doraiswami disclose further comprising: using the subset ML model to detect faults in one or more network nodes in a network . ( col. 4, line 28-col. 5, line 46, using the model to identify faults in the actuator or sensors in a network) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Doraiswami ’s ML model training into Li and Liu’s invention as they are related to the same field endeavor of model training and learning. The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because Doraiswami ’s ML to detect faulty component in the system would help to provide more model applications into Li and Liu’s system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made that providing more model applications in detecting the faulty component in a system would help to expand the model usage . In regard to claim 9 , Liu and Li disclose The method according to claim 1, But Liu and Li fail to explicitly disclose “ further comprising: using the subset ML model to detect faults in one or more wireless sensor devices in a network .” Doraiswami disclose further comprising: using the subset ML model to detect faults in one or more wireless sensor devices in a network (col. 4, line 28-col. 5, line 46, col. 20, line 13-24, using the model to identify faults in the actuator or sensors in a wireless network) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Doraiswami ’s ML model training into Li and Liu’s invention as they are related to the same field endeavor of model training and learning. The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because Doraiswami ’s ML to detect faulty component in the system would help to provide more model applications into Li and Liu’s system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made that providing more model applications in detecting the faulty component in a system would help to expand the model usage. In regard to claims 1 7 -18, claims 1 7 -18 are node claims corresponding to the method claims 8 -9 above and, therefore, are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claims 8 -9. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Documents PATENT DATE INVENTOR(S) TITLE US 2022/0051105. 2022-02-17 Fukuda et al. TRAINING TEACHER MACHINE LEARNING MODELS USING LOSSLESS AND LOSSY BRANCHES Fukuda et al. disclose techniques for training teacher neural networks (TNNs) and student neural networks (SNNs). A training data set is received with a lossless set of data and a corresponding lossy set of data. Two branches of a TNN are established, with one branch trained using the lossless data (a lossless branch) and one trained using the lossy data (a lossy branch). Weights for the two branches are tied together. The lossy branch, now isolated from the lossless branch, generates a set of soft targets for initializing an SNN. These generated soft targets benefit from the training of lossless branch through the weights that were tied together between each branch, despite isolating the lossless branch from the lossy branch during soft-target generation …. See abstract. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT XUYANG XIA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3045 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8am-4pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jennifer Welch can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-7212 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT XUYANG XIA Primary Examiner Art Unit 2143 /XUYANG XIA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2143