DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application 18/348,148 filed on July 06th, 2023.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1-13 are pending and herein considered.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 07/06/2023, 11/05/2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CRR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) to Application No. 10 2022 207 072.0, the signed copy having been filed on July 11th, 2022.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 7; claim 7 calls for a system; however, the body of the claim does not positively recite any hardware element. As recited in the body of the claim, the claimed apparatus contains “a provision unit,” “a mapping unit,” “an association unit,” “a definition unit” and “an ascertainment unit.” In light of the specification (pg. [12]), the provision unit, the mapping unit, the association unit, the definition unit, and the ascertainment unit can be all construed as software per se since they do not embody any hardware. Because the elements of claim 7 is interpreted as merely software and the claim lacks any physical device or machine, the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. It is suggested that the claim be further amended to positively recite at least one hardware element within the body of the claim to make the claim statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 10; claim 10 calls for a system; however, the body of the claim does not positively recite any hardware element. As recited in the body of the claim, the claimed apparatus contains “a first provision unit,” “a second provision unit,” “a mapping unit,” “an association unit,” “a definition unit” and “an ascertainment unit.” In light of the specification (pg. [14]), the first provision unit, the second provision unit, the mapping unit, the association unit, the definition unit, and the ascertainment unit can be all construed as software per se since they do not embody any hardware. Because the elements of claim 10 is interpreted as merely software and the claim lacks any physical device or machine, the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. It is suggested that the claim be further amended to positively recite at least one hardware element within the body of the claim to make the claim statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 12; claim 12 calls for a system; however, the body of the claim does not positively recite any hardware element. As recited in the body of the claim, the claimed apparatus contains “a third provision unit,” “a first provision unit,” “a second provision unit,” “a provision unit,” “a mapping unit,” “an association unit,” “a definition unit” and “an ascertainment unit.” In light of the specification (pg. [14]), the third provision unit, the first provision unit, the second provision unit, the provision unit, the mapping unit, the association unit, the definition unit, and the ascertainment unit can be all construed as software per se since they do not embody any hardware. Because the elements of claim 12 is interpreted as merely software and the claim lacks any physical device or machine, the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. It is suggested that the claim be further amended to positively recite at least one hardware element within the body of the claim to make the claim statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 12 and 13; claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 12 and 13 are/is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claims are/is directed to an abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application nor being significantly more.
The claims reciting the limitations “provision[ing] a set of possible architectures of the artificial neural network,” “mapp[ing] the set of possible architectures of the artificial neural network onto a directed graph,” “associat[ing], for each edge of the directed graph, a flow with the corresponding edge,” “defin[ing] a strategy for ascertaining an optimal architecture based on the directed graph,” “ascertain[ing] the optimal architecture of the artificial neural network,” “ascertain[ing] a trajectory from the initial node to a terminal node based on the defined strategy,” “determin[ing] a reward for the ascertained trajectory,” “determin[ing] a cost function for the ascertained trajectory based on the ascertained reward for the trajectory and the flows associated with the edges along the trajectory” and “update[ing] the flows associated with the edges along the trajectory, based on the cost function” are directed to an abstract idea as the claims recite mental processes. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. It’s noted that the claims recite additional element(s) (i.e, a new node, an L2 network). However, said additional element is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of provisioning/mapping/associating/defining/ascertaining/ascertaining/determining/determining/updating) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. Therefore, the claims are not integrated into a practical application.
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 an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As mentioned above, although the claims recite additional element, said element taken individually or as a combination, do not result in the claim amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea because as the additional elements perform generic computer content distributing functions routinely used in information technology field. Updating the flows associated with the edges along the trajectory, based on the cost function is conventional, well know routing in view of Berkeeimer memo here. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Therefore, the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 2-3, 5, 8-9 & 11; claims 2-3, 5, 8-9 & 11 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter for the same reasons addressed above as the claims are directed to abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application nor being significantly more.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHOI V LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5087. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Shewaye Gelagay can be reached on 571-272-4219. 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.
/KHOI V LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436