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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/21/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 21-23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 21, line 10, “minimum resolution” should read “minimum resolution,”
Dependent claims 22-23 are objected based on being directly or indirectly dependent on objected claim 21.
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.
Claims 1-27 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the corresponding hyperparameter” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the corresponding hyperparameter” has been interpreted as “a corresponding hyperparameter”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the inputs” in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the inputs” has been interpreted as “the training inputs” in reference to “training inputs” in line 17.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the current parameters” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the current parameters” has been interpreted as “current parameters”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the current parameters” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the current parameters” has been interpreted as “current parameters”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the downsampling” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the downsampling” has been interpreted as “downsampling”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the kernel” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the kernel” has been interpreted as “the convolutional kernel” in reference to “a convolutional kernel” in line 3.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the kernel” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the kernel” has been interpreted as “the convolutional kernel” in reference to “a convolutional kernel” in line 3.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the downsampling” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the downsampling” has been interpreted as “downsampling”.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the kernel” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the kernel” has been interpreted as “the convolutional kernel” in reference to “a convolutional kernel” in line 3.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “the corresponding hyperparameter” in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the corresponding hyperparameter” has been interpreted as “a corresponding hyperparameter”.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “the new input” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the new input” has been interpreted as “the new network input” in reference to “a new network input” in line 3.
Claim 27 recites the limitation “the corresponding hyperparameter” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the corresponding hyperparameter” has been interpreted as “a corresponding hyperparameter”.
Claim 27 recites the limitation “the inputs” in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the inputs” has been interpreted as “the training inputs” in reference to “training inputs” in line 19.
Dependent claims 2-24 are rejected based on being directly or indirectly dependent on rejected claim 1.
Dependent claim 26 is rejected based on being directly or indirectly dependent on rejected claim 25.
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 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1,
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“determining, for each of the plurality of hyperparameters, a current value of the hyperparameter according to the parameters of the parametric differentiable mask over the values of the hyperparameter”
“determining a current architecture of the neural network that is defined by the current values of the plurality of hyperparameters and that includes a subset of the network parameters”
“processing each of the training inputs using an instance of the neural network having the current architecture defined by the current values of the plurality of hyperparameters to generate a respective training output for each of the inputs”
“determining, through backpropagation, a first gradient with respect to the subset of the network parameters that are included in the current architecture of a loss function that comprises one or more terms that measure a quality of the training outputs”
“updating, using the first gradient, the network parameters that are included in the current architecture”
“determining, through backpropagation, a second gradient of the loss function with respect to the parameters of the parametric differentiable masks for the plurality of hyperparameters”
“updating, using the second gradient, the parameters of the parametric differentiable masks for the plurality of hyperparameters of the loss function”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) and mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass determining a current value of each hyperparameter according to the parameters of the parametric differential mask over the hyperparameter values (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the parameters of the parametric differentiable mask over the hyperparameter values to determine a current value of each of the hyperparameters); determining a current neural network architecture that is defined by the current values of the hyperparameters and that includes a subset of the network parameters (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can determine a current architecture of the neural network defined by the current hyperparameters values and a subset of network parameters); processing training inputs using an instance of the neural network with the current architecture defined by current hyperparameter values to generate a respective training output for each of the inputs (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can generate a respective training output for each of the inputs by processing the training inputs using an instance of the neural network having the current architecture having the current values of the hyperparameters); using backpropagation to determine a first gradient with respect to the subset of network parameters included in the current architecture of a loss function that comprises one or more terms that measure quality of the training outputs (corresponds to mathematical calculations); updating the network parameters included in the current architecture using the first gradient (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the first gradient to update the network parameters included in the current architecture); using backpropagation to determine a second gradient of the loss function with respect to the parameters of the parametric differential masks for the hyperparameters (corresponds to mathematical calculations); and updating the parameters of the parametric differential masks of the hyperparameters of the loss function using the second gradient (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the second gradient to update the parameters of the parametric differential masks for the hyperparameters of the loss function).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“one or more computers”
“a neural network”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations:
“maintaining, for each of a plurality of hyperparameters of the architecture of the neural network, one or more parameters of a parametric differentiable mask over values of the hyperparameter, wherein each parametric differentiable mask maps a subset of the values of the corresponding hyperparameter to non-zero values and wherein the subset of the values is defined by the parameters of the parametric differentiable mask”
“maintaining network parameters of the neural network”
“obtaining a set of training inputs for the training iterations”
As drafted, are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the additional elements are merely directed towards mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computer and neural network for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. maintaining/recording and obtaining/receiving data). Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iii. Electronic recordkeeping). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 2,
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the loss function includes one or more first additional terms that measure a computational complexity of the neural network given the current parameters of the parametric differentiable masks”
As drafted, is part of the abstract idea of claim 1 of determining a first gradient of a loss function using backpropagation. The limitation of claim 2 further limits the limitation of claim 1 by further defining what the loss function comprises. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses using backpropagation to determine a first gradient with respect to the subset of network parameters included in the current architecture of a loss function that comprises one or more terms that measure quality of the training outputs and one or more first additional terms that measure a computational complexity of the neural network given the current parameters of the parametric differentiable masks (corresponds to mathematical calculations).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a generic computer and neural network, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations of claim 1 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computer and neural network for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. maintaining/recording and obtaining/receiving data). Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iii. Electronic recordkeeping). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3,
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the one or more first additional terms measure the computational complexity of the neural network relative to a target computational complexity for the neural network”
As drafted, is part of the abstract idea of claim 2 of determining a first gradient of a loss function using backpropagation. The limitation of claim 3 further limits the limitation of claim 2 by further defining what the first additional terms of the loss function comprise. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses using backpropagation to determine a first gradient with respect to the subset of network parameters included in the current architecture of a loss function that comprises one or more terms that measure quality of the training outputs and one or more first additional terms that measure a computational complexity of the neural network relative to a target computational complexity for the neural network given the current parameters of the parametric differentiable masks (corresponds to mathematical calculations).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recitation of additional elements in claim 2 of a generic computer and neural network, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations of claim 2 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computer and neural network for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. maintaining/recording and obtaining/receiving data). Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iii. Electronic recordkeeping). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4,
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the loss function includes one or more second additional terms that measure a memory efficiency of the neural network given the current parameters of the parametric differentiable masks”
As drafted, is part of the abstract idea of claim 1 of determining a first gradient of a loss function using backpropagation. The limitation of claim 4 further limits the limitation of claim 1 by further defining what the loss function comprises. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses using backpropagation to determine a first gradient with respect to the subset of network parameters included in the current architecture of a loss function that comprises one or more terms that measure quality of the training outputs and one or more second additional terms that measure a memory efficiency of the neural network given the current parameters of the parametric differentiable masks (corresponds to mathematical calculations).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a generic computer and neural network, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations of claim 1 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computer and neural network for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. maintaining/recording and obtaining/receiving data). Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iii. Electronic recordkeeping). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 5,
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see the analysis of claim 5. The limitations of claim 1 are only additional elements to the abstract ideas of claim 5.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“wherein for one or more of the hyperparameters, the parametric differentiable mask over values of the hyperparameter is a Gaussian mask and the one or more parameters of the Gaussian mask include a mean, a parameter defining a variance, or both”
As drafted, are additional elements that are part of the insignificant extra-solution activity of claim 1 of maintaining parameters of a parametric differentiable mask over values of the hyperparameter for a plurality of hyperparameters. In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a generic computer and neural network, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations of claim 1 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computer and neural network for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. maintaining/recording and obtaining/receiving data). Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iii. Electronic recordkeeping). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 6,
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see the analysis of claim 6. The limitations of claim 1 are only additional elements to the abstract ideas of claim 6.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“wherein for one or more of the hyperparameters, the parametric differentiable mask over values of the hyperparameter is a Sigmoid mask and the one or more parameters of the Sigmoid mask include an offset, a temperature, or both”
As drafted, are additional elements that are part of the insignificant extra-solution activity of claim 1 of maintaining parameters of a parametric differentiable mask over values of the hyperparameter for a plurality of hyperparameters. In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a generic computer and neural network, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations of claim 1 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computer and neural network for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. maintaining/recording and obtaining/receiving data). Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iii. Electronic recordkeeping). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 7,
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see the analysis of claim 7. The limitations of claim 1 are only additional elements to the abstract ideas of claim 7.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“wherein the neural network includes one or more convolutional neural network layers”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations:
“wherein the plurality of hyperparameters includes, for each of the one or more convolutional network layers, one or more hyperparameters that define a size of a convolutional kernel of the convolutional neural network layer and that each correspond to a respective dimension of the convolutional kernel”
As drafted, are additional elements that are part of the insignificant extra-solution activity of claim 1 of maintaining parameters of a parametric differentiable mask over values of the hyperparameter for a plurality of hyperparameters. In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a generic computer and neural network, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations of claim 1 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computer and neural network for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. maintaining/recording and obtaining/receiving data). Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iii. Electronic recordkeeping). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 8,
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see the analysis of claim 8. The limitations of claim 7 are only additional elements to the abstract ideas of claim 8.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“wherein the convolutional kernel is a two-dimensional kernel and the plurality of hyperparameters include a first hyperparameter corresponding to a height of the convolutional kernel and a second hyperparameter corresponding to a width of the convolutional kernel”
As drafted, are additional elements that are part of the insignificant extra-solution activity of claim 7 of maintaining parameters of a parametric differentiable mask over values of the hyperparameter for a plurality of hyperparameters, the hyperparameters including a size definition of a convolutional kernel. In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 7 of a generic computer and neural network, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations of claim 7 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computer and neural network for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. maintaining/recording and obtaining/receiving data). Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iii. Electronic recordkeeping). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 9,
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see the analysis of claim 9. The limitations of claim 7 are only additional elements to the abstract ideas of claim 9.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“wherein the convolutional kernel is a one-dimensional kernel and the plurality of hyperparameters include a first hyperparameter corresponding to a length of the convolutional kernel”
As drafted, are additional elements that are part of the insignificant extra-solution activity of claim 7 of maintaining parameters of a parametric differentiable mask over values of the hyperparameter for a plurality of hyperparameters, the hyperparameters including a size definition of a convolutional kernel. In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 7 of a generic computer and neural network, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations of claim 7 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computer and neural network for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. maintaining/recording and obtaining/receiving data). Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iii. Electronic recordkeeping). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 10,
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“for each network parameter that corresponds to a coordinate within the convolutional kernel that is not mapped to zero by the one or more hyperparameters that define the size of the convolutional kernel: determining a current value of the network parameter”
“determining a value of the network parameter in the current architecture based on a product of the current value and, for each dimension of the convolutional kernel, an output generated for a component of the coordinate along the dimension by the parametric differentiable mask corresponding to the dimension”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) and mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass determining a current network parameter value for each network parameter that corresponds to a coordinate within the convolutional kernel that is not mapped to zero by the hyperparameters that define the convolutional kernel size (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can determine current values of network parameters for each network parameter that corresponds to a coordinate within the convolutional kernel that is not mapped to zero by hyperparameters that define the size of the convolutional kernel); and determining a value of the network parameter in the current architecture based on a product of the current value and an output generated for a component of the coordinate along the dimension by the parametric differentiable mask corresponding to the dimension for each dimension of the convolutional kernel (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use a product of the current value and an output generated for a component of the coordinate along the dimension by the parametric differentiable mask corresponding to the dimension for each dimension of the convolutional kernel to determine a value of the network parameter).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recitation of additional elements in claim 7 of a generic computer and neural network, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations of claim 7 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computer and neural network for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. maintaining/recording and obtaining/receiving data). Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iii. Electronic recordkeeping). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 11,
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein determining the current value of the network parameter comprises processing an input representing the coordinate … to generate, as output, the current value of the network parameter”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) and mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass determining the current value of the network parameters by processing an input representing the coordinate to generate the current value of the network parameters as output (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can determine the current network parameter value by processing an input representing the coordinate to generate, as output, the current value of the network parameter).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“using a continuous convolutional kernel neural network”
“wherein the continuous convolutional kernel neural network is trained jointly with the neural network”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 10 of a generic computer and neural network, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations of claim 10 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computer and neural network for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. maintaining/recording and obtaining/receiving data). Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iii. Electronic recordkeeping). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 12,
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see the analysis of claim 11. The limitations of claim 12 are only additional elements to the abstract ideas of claim 11.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“wherein the neural network comprises a sequence of residual blocks, wherein each residual block includes a residual branch comprising one or more neural network layers and an identity branch”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 11 of a generic computer and neural network, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations of claim 11 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computer and neural network for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. maintaining/recording and obtaining/receiving data). Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iii. Electronic recordkeeping). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 13,
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see the analysis of claim 12. The limitations of claim 13 are only additional elements to the abstract ideas of claim 12.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“wherein the plurality of hyperparameters includes a first hyperparameter and each value of the first hyperparameter corresponds to a different subset of residual blocks in the sequence of residual blocks that do not have their output set to zero”
As drafted, are additional elements that are part of the insignificant extra-solution activity of claim 12 of maintaining parameters of a parametric differentiable mask over values of the hyperparameter for a plurality of hyperparameters, the hyperparameters including a size definition of a convolutional kernel. In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 12 of a generic computer and neural network, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations of claim 12 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computer and neural network for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. maintaining/recording and obtaining/receiving data). Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iii. Electronic recordkeeping). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 14,
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“for each residual block in the sequence of residual blocks that does not have their output set to zero: determining a final output of the residual branch of the residual block to be a product of the output of the residual branch and an output generated for the index of the residual block by the parametric differentiable mask corresponding to the hyperparameter”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) and mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass for each residual block that does not have its output set to zero, determining a final output of the residual branch of the residual block to be a product of the output residual branch and an output generated for the index of the residual block by the parametric differentiable mask corresponding to the hyperparameter (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can determine a final output of the residual branch of the residual block to be a product of the output of the residual branch and an output generated for the index of the residual block by the parametric differentiable mask corresponding to the hyperparameter for each residual block that does not have its output set to zero).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“wherein each residual block has a respective index”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 13 of a generic computer and neural network, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations of claim 13 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computer and neural network for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. maintaining/recording and obtaining/receiving data). Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iii. Electronic recordkeeping). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 15,
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see the analysis of claim 15. The limitations of claim 1 are only additional elements to the abstract ideas of claim 15.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“wherein, for each of one or more of the plurality of layers of the neural network, the hyperparameters include: (i) an input width hyperparameter having values that specify a number of channels in an input feature representation received as input by the layer; (ii) an output width hyperparameter having values that specify a number of channels in an output feature representation generated as output by the layer; or (iii) both”
As drafted, are additional elements that are part of the insignificant extra-solution activity of claim 1 of maintaining parameters of a parametric differentiable mask over values of the hyperparameter for a plurality of hyperparameters. In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a generic computer and neural network, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations of claim 1 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computer and neural network for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. maintaining/recording and obtaining/receiving data). Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iii. Electronic recordkeeping). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 16,
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see the analysis of claim 16. The limitations of claim 1 are only additional elements to the abstract ideas of claim 16.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“wherein the neural network includes one or more downsampling layers”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations:
“wherein the hyperparameters include, for each downsampling layer, a respective hyperparameter that defines a cutoff frequency for the downsampling”
As drafted, are additional elements that are part of the insignificant extra-solution activity of claim 1 of maintaining parameters of a parametric differentiable mask over values of the hyperparameter for a plurality of hyperparameters. In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a generic computer and neural network, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations of claim 1 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computer and neural network for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. maintaining/recording and obtaining/receiving data). Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iii. Electronic recordkeeping). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 17,
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 17 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“applying a Fourier transform to the layer input and a convolutional kernel to transform the layer input and the kernel into a Fourier domain”
“multiplying the transformed layer input and the convolutional kernel in Fourier domain to generate a product”
“applying an inverse Fourier transform to the product to transform the product to the spatial domain”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) and mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass applying a Fourier transform to the layer input and convolutional kernel to transform the layer input and the kernel into a Fourier domain (corresponds to mathematical calculations); multiplying the transformed layer input and the convolutional kernel in Fourier domain to generate a product (corresponds to mathematical calculations); and applying an inverse Fourier transform to the product to transform the product to the spatial domain (corresponds to mathematical calculations).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“wherein: the neural network includes one or more convolutional neural network layers that perform a convolution between a layer input and a convolutional kernel for the convolutional layer in a spatial domain”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a generic computer and neural network, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations of claim 1 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computer and neural network for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. maintaining/recording and obtaining/receiving data). Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iii. Electronic recordkeeping). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 18,
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 18 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“applying a Fourier transform to the layer input and a convolutional kernel to transform the layer input and the kernel into a Fourier domain”
“multiplying the transformed layer input and the convolutional kernel in Fourier domain to generate a product”
“applying downsampling to the product to generate a downsampled product”
“applying an inverse Fourier transform to the downsampled product to transform the product to the spatial domain”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) and mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass applying a Fourier transform to the layer input and convolutional kernel to transform the layer input and the kernel into a Fourier domain (corresponds to mathematical calculations); multiplying the transformed layer input and the convolutional kernel in Fourier domain to generate a product (corresponds to mathematical calculations); applying downsampling to the product to generate a downsampled production (corresponds to mathematical calculations); and applying an inverse Fourier transform to the downsampled product to transform the product to the spatial domain (corresponds to mathematical calculations).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“wherein: the neural network includes one or more downsampling convolutional neural network layers that perform a convolution between a layer input and a convolutional kernel for the downsampling convolutional layer in a spatial domain”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a generic computer and neural network, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations of claim 1 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computer and neural network for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. maintaining/recording and obtaining/receiving data). Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iii. Electronic recordkeeping). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 19,
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 19 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see the analysis of claim 19. The limitations of claim 18 are only additional elements to the abstract ideas of claim 19.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“wherein the hyperparameters include, for each downsampling convolutional layer, a respective hyperparameter that defines a cutoff frequency for the downsampling”
As drafted, are additional elements that are part of the insignificant extra-solution activity of claim 18 of maintaining parameters of a parametric differentiable mask over values of the hyperparameter for a plurality of hyperparameters. In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 18 of a generic computer and neural network, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations of claim 18 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computer and neural network for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. maintaining/recording and obtaining/receiving data). Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iii. Electronic recordkeeping). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 20,
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 20 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see the analysis of claim 20. The limitations of claim 18 are only additional elements to the abstract ideas of claim 20.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“wherein the hyperparameters include one or more hyperparameters that define a size of the convolutional kernel of the downsampling convolutional neural network layer and that each correspond to a respective dimension of the convolutional kernel”
As drafted, are additional elements that are part of the insignificant extra-solution activity of claim 18 of maintaining parameters of a parametric differentiable mask over values of the hyperparameter for a plurality of hyperparameters. In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 18 of a generic computer and neural network, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations of claim 18 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computer and neural network for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. maintaining/recording and obtaining/receiving data). Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iii. Electronic recordkeeping). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 21,
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 21 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“identifying a minimum resolution for the convolution based on a cutoff frequency for the downsampling”
“applying a Fourier transform to the layer input and a convolutional kernel to transform the layer input and the kernel into a Fourier domain”
“downsampling the transformed layer input and the convolutional kernel to the minimum resolution”
“multiplying the downsampled transformed layer input and convolutional kernel in the Fourier domain to generate a product”
“applying an inverse Fourier transform to the product to transform the product to the spatial domain”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) and mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass identifying a minimum resolution for the convolution based on a cutoff frequency for downsampling (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use a cutoff frequency for the downsampling to identify a minimum resolution for convolution); applying a Fourier transform to the layer input and convolutional kernel to transform the layer input and the kernel into a Fourier domain (corresponds to mathematical calculations); downsampling the transformed layer input and the convolutional kernel to the minimum resolution (corresponds to mathematical calculations); multiplying the downsampled transformed layer input and the convolutional kernel in Fourier domain to generate a product (corresponds to mathematical calculations); and applying an inverse Fourier transform to the product to transform the product to the spatial domain (corresponds to mathematical calculations).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“wherein: the neural network includes one or more downsampling convolutional neural network layers that perform a convolution between a layer input and a convolutional kernel for the downsampling convolutional layer in a spatial domain”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a generic computer and neural network, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations of claim 1 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computer and neural network for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. maintaining/recording and obtaining/receiving data). Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iii. Electronic recordkeeping). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 22,
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 22 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see the analysis of claim 21. The limitations of claim 22 are only additional elements to the abstract ideas of claim 21.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“wherein the hyperparameters include, for each downsampling convolutional layer, a respective hyperparameter that defines the cutoff frequency for the downsampling”
As drafted, are additional elements that are part of the insignificant extra-solution activity of claim 21 of maintaining parameters of a parametric differentiable mask over values of the hyperparameter for a plurality of hyperparameters. In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 21 of a generic computer and neural network, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations of claim 21 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computer and neural network for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. maintaining/recording and obtaining/receiving data). Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iii. Electronic recordkeeping). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 23,
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 23 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see the analysis of claim 21. The limitations of claim 23 are only additional elements to the abstract ideas of claim 21.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“wherein the hyperparameters include one or more hyperparameters that define a size of the convolutional kernel of the downsampling convolutional neural network layer and that each correspond to a respective dimension of the convolutional kernel”
As drafted, are additional elements that are part of the insignificant extra-solution activity of claim 21 of maintaining parameters of a parametric differentiable mask over values of the hyperparameter for a plurality of hyperparameters. In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 21 of a generic computer and neural network, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations of claim 21 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computer and neural network for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. maintaining/recording and obtaining/receiving data). Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iii. Electronic recordkeeping). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 24,
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 24 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“after the training, determining a final architecture of the neural network that is defined by final values of the plurality of hyperparameters determined using final parameters of the parametric differentiable masks”
“processing new inputs to the neural network using an instance of the neural network having the final architecture and in accordance with trained values of the network parameters that are included in the final architecture”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) and mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass determining a final architecture of the neural network that is defined by final values of the hyperparameters determined using final parameters of the parametric differential masks (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use final parameters of the parametric differential masks to determine a final architecture of the neural network); and processing new inputs of the neural network using an instance having the final architecture in accordance with trained values of the network parameters (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can process new inputs using an instance having the final architecture in accordance with trained values of the network parameters).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a generic computer and neural network, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations of claim 1 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computer and neural network for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. maintaining/recording and obtaining/receiving data). Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iii. Electronic recordkeeping). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 25,
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 25 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“processing, using the additional neural network and in accordance with the additional network parameters, the training input to generate, for each of the plurality of hyperparameters, current parameters of the parametric differentiable mask over values of the hyperparameter”
“determining, for each of the plurality of hyperparameters, a current value of the hyperparameter according to the current parameters of the parametric differentiable mask over the values of the hyperparameter”
“determining a current architecture of the neural network that is defined by the current values of the plurality of hyperparameters and that includes a subset of the network parameters”
“processing the training input using an instance of the neural network having the current architecture defined by the current values of the plurality of hyperparameters to generate a training output for the training input”
“determining, through backpropagation, a first gradient with respect to the subset of the network parameters that are included in the current architecture of a loss function that comprises one or more terms that measure a quality of the training outputs”
“determining, through backpropagation, a second gradient with respect to the additional network parameters of the loss function”
“updating, using the first gradients for the training inputs, the network parameters that are included in the current architecture”
“updating, using the second gradients for the training inputs, the additional network parameters”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) and mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass processing the training input in accordance with the additional network parameters to generate current parameters of the parametric differentiable mask over values of the hyperparameter for the hyperparameters (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can process the training input to generate current parameters of the parametric differentiable mask over values of the hyperparameter for the hyperparameters); determining a current hyperparameter value for each of the hyperparameters according current parameters of the parametric differentiable mask over the values of the hyperparameter (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can determine current hyperparameter values according to the current parameters of the parametric differentiable mask over the values of the hyperparameter); determining a current neural network architecture that is defined by the current values of the hyperparameters and that includes a subset of the network parameters (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can determine a current architecture of the neural network defined by the current hyperparameters values and a subset of network parameters); processing training inputs using an instance of the neural network with the current architecture defined by current hyperparameter values to generate a respective training output for the training input (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can generate a respective training output for each of the inputs by processing the training inputs using an instance of the neural network having the current architecture having the current values of the hyperparameters); using backpropagation to determine a first gradient with respect to the subset of network parameters included in the current architecture of a loss function that comprises one or more terms that measure quality of the training outputs (corresponds to mathematical calculations); using backpropagation to determine a second gradient of the loss function with respect to the additional network parameters (corresponds to mathematical calculations); updating the network parameters included in the current architecture using the first gradient (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the first gradient to update the network parameters included in the current architecture); and updating the additional network parameters of the loss function using the second gradient (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the second gradient to update the additional network parameters of the loss function).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“one or more computers”
“a neural network”
“an additional neural network”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations:
“maintaining additional network parameters of an additional neural network that is configured to receive a network input and to process the network input to generate, for each of a plurality of hyperparameters of the architecture of the neural network, one or more parameters of a parametric differentiable mask over values of the hyperparameter, wherein each parametric differentiable mask maps a subset of the values of the corresponding hyperparameter to non-zero values and wherein the subset of the values is defined by the parameters of the parametric differentiable mask”
“maintaining network parameters of the neural network”
“obtaining a set of training inputs for the training iteration”
As drafted, are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the additional elements are merely directed towards mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computer, neural network, and additional neural network for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. maintaining/recording and obtaining/receiving data). Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iii. Electronic recordkeeping). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 26,
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 26 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“processing using the additional neural network and in accordance with trained values of additional network parameters, the new network input to generate, for each of the plurality of hyperparameters, new parameters of the parametric differentiable mask over values of the hyperparameter”
“determining a new architecture of the neural network that is defined by new values of the plurality of hyperparameters determined using the new parameters of the parametric differentiable masks”
“processing the new input to the neural network using an instance of the neural network having the new architecture and in accordance with trained values of the network parameters that are included in the new architecture”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) and mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass processing the new network input in accordance with trained values of additional network parameters to generate new parameters of the parametric differentiable mask over values of the hyperparameter for the hyperparameters (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can process the new network input to generate new parameters of the parametric differentiable mask over values of the hyperparameter for the hyperparameters); determining a new architecture of the neural network that is defined by new values of the hyperparameters determined using the new parameters of the parametric differential masks (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use new parameters of the parametric differential masks to determine a new architecture of the neural network); and processing new inputs of the neural network using an instance having the new architecture in accordance with trained values of the network parameters (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can process new inputs using an instance having the new architecture in accordance with trained values of the network parameters).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“receiving a new network input”
As drafted, are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the additional elements are merely directed towards mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 25 of a generic computer and neural network, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations of claim 25 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computer, neural network, and additional neural network for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. maintaining/recording and obtaining/receiving data). Furthermore, the “maintaining …”, “obtaining …”, and “receiving …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iii. Electronic recordkeeping). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 27,
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 27 is directed to a system, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“determining, for each of the plurality of hyperparameters, a current value of the hyperparameter according to the parameters of the parametric differentiable mask over the values of the hyperparameter”
“determining a current architecture of the neural network that is defined by the current values of the plurality of hyperparameters and that includes a subset of the network parameters”
“processing each of the training inputs using an instance of the neural network having the current architecture defined by the current values of the plurality of hyperparameters to generate a respective training output for each of the inputs”
“determining, through backpropagation, a first gradient with respect to the subset of the network parameters that are included in the current architecture of a loss function that comprises one or more terms that measure a quality of the training outputs”
“updating, using the first gradient, the network parameters that are included in the current architecture”
“determining, through backpropagation, a second gradient of the loss function with respect to the parameters of the parametric differentiable masks for the plurality of hyperparameters”
“updating, using the second gradient, the parameters of the parametric differentiable masks for the plurality of hyperparameters of the loss function”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) and mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass determining a current value of each hyperparameter according to the parameters of the parametric differential mask over the hyperparameter values (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the parameters of the parametric differentiable mask over the hyperparameter values to determine a current value of each of the hyperparameters); determining a current neural network architecture that is defined by the current values of the hyperparameters and that includes a subset of the network parameters (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can determine a current architecture of the neural network defined by the current hyperparameters values and a subset of network parameters); processing training inputs using an instance of the neural network with the current architecture defined by current hyperparameter values to generate a respective training output for each of the inputs (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can generate a respective training output for each of the inputs by processing the training inputs using an instance of the neural network having the current architecture having the current values of the hyperparameters); using backpropagation to determine a first gradient with respect to the subset of network parameters included in the current architecture of a loss function that comprises one or more terms that measure quality of the training outputs (corresponds to mathematical calculations); updating the network parameters included in the current architecture using the first gradient (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the first gradient to update the network parameters included in the current architecture); using backpropagation to determine a second gradient of the loss function with respect to the parameters of the parametric differential masks for the hyperparameters (corresponds to mathematical calculations); and updating the parameters of the parametric differential masks of the hyperparameters of the loss function using the second gradient (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the second gradient to update the parameters of the parametric differential masks for the hyperparameters of the loss function).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“one or more computers”
“one or more storage devices”
“a neural network”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations:
“maintaining, for each of a plurality of hyperparameters of the architecture of the neural network, one or more parameters of a parametric differentiable mask over values of the hyperparameter, wherein each parametric differentiable mask maps a subset of the values of the corresponding hyperparameter to non-zero values and wherein the subset of the values is defined by the parameters of the parametric differentiable mask”
“maintaining network parameters of the neural network”
“obtaining a set of training inputs for the training iterations”
As drafted, are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the additional elements are merely directed towards mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computer, storage device, and neural network for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. maintaining/recording and obtaining/receiving data). Furthermore, the “maintaining …” and “obtaining …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iii. Electronic recordkeeping). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Partovi Nia et al. (US 2021/0073643 A1) teaches pruning filters of a neural network block using a trainable scaling factor, wherein the neural network block applies a differentiable mask function to train/update the scaling factors and weights associated with filters of the NN block during backward propagation to perform high speed neural network operations by processing units that have limited computational power.
Romero et al. (“FlexConv: Continuous Kernel Convolutions with Differentiable Kernel Sizes”) teaches a convolutional operation wherein high bandwidth convolutional kernels of learnable kernel size can be learned at a fixed parameter cost and in which the frequency of the kernels can be analytically controlled to have higher descriptive power and faster convergence speed than existing parameterizations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN J HALES whose telephone number is (571)272-0878. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Kamran Afshar can be reached at (571) 272-7796. 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.
/BRIAN J HALES/Examiner, Art Unit 2125
/KAMRAN AFSHAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2125
Prosecution Insights