DETAILED ACTION
This office action is made final. Claims 1-20 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment date 5/27/2026, amended claims 1, 9, and 15.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection to claims 1-20, under 35 USC 101 (Alice), will be maintained.
The previously pending rejection to claims 1-20, under 35 USC 112(b), have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments received on date 5/27/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive regarding 101.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101:
Applicant asserts that “Claim 1 thus recites significant features that are integrated into a practical application, reduce computational cost and latency, and improve runtime efficiency, which improves how computers process data. Claim 1, as well as the other independent claims, thus amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception and integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under the second prong of Step 2A, we determine whether any additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and as an ordered combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. 52, 54-55.
Under Prong 2 of Step 2A, as set in the previous actions, the “additional limitations beyond the recited abstract idea” recited in claims 1, 9, and 15, comprise the recitations "mapping 8-bit fp8 weight values to unsigned 8-bit integers, wherein most frequently occurring fp8 values map to lowest unsigned 8-bit integer weight values; based on the mapped unsigned 8-bit integers, for every four fp8 weight values: adding a 2-bit descriptor that indicates whether the associated four fp8 weight values are stored as 5-bit, 6-bit, 7-bit, or 8-bit; and storing the four fp8 weight values based on the 2-bit descriptor; and using the stored fp8 weight values for inferencing using the machine learning model,” and individually and as an ordered combination, these features amount to no more than applying the abstract idea using generic recitations of computer components (i.e., “apply it”) and generally link the abstract idea to a technical environment or field of use, namely a generic computing such as a machine learning model, a processing system, a processor, a computer-readable media, and computer-executable instructions, which are not sufficient to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f), (h).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claims 1, 9, and 15 recite an abstract idea. Claims 1, 9, and 15 include “mapping 8-bit fp8 weight values to unsigned 8-bit integers, wherein most frequently occurring fp8 values map to lowest unsigned 8-bit integer weight values; based on the mapped unsigned 8-bit integers, for every four fp8 weight values: adding a 2-bit descriptor that indicates whether the associated four fp8 weight values are stored as 5-bit, 6-bit, 7-bit, or 8-bit; and storing the four fp8 weight values based on the 2-bit descriptor; and using the stored fp8 weight values for inferencing using the machine learning model”.
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the elements above recite mental processes-concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) because the elements describe a process for implementing lossless compression. As a result, claims 1, 9, and 15 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 further describe the process for implementing lossless compression. As a result, claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 1, 9, and 15.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claims 1, 9, and 15 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1, 9, and 15 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 1, 9, and 15 include a machine learning model, a processing system, a processor, a computer-readable media, and computer-executable instructions. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computing elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 1, 9, and 15 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 3-4, 11-12, and 17-18 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited with respect to claims 1, 9, and 15. As a result, claims 3-4, 11-12, and 17-18 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 1, 9, and 15.
Claims 2, 5-8, 10, 13-14, 16, and 19-20 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 2, 5-8, 10, 13-14, 16, and 19-20 include a machine learning model, a large language model, and Compute Unified Device Architecture (CUDA) kernels. When considered in view of the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computing elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claims 2, 5-8, 10, 13-14, 16, and 19-20 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claims 1, 9, and 15 do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claims 1, 9, and 15 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 1, 9, and 15 include a machine learning model, a processing system, a processor, a computer-readable media, and computer-executable instructions. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computing elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, independent claims 1, 9, and 15 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 3-4, 11-12, and 17-18 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited with respect to claims 1, 9, and 15. As a result, claims 3-4, 11-12, and 17-18 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 1, 9, and 15.
Claims 2, 5-8, 10, 13-14, 16, and 19-20 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 2, 5-8, 10, 13-14, 16, and 19-20 include a proximal sensor, a remote sensor, a sensor, a remote sensing satellite, an airplane, an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computing elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 2, 5-8, 10, 13-14, 16, and 19-20 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAFIZ A KASSIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8534. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 5:00 PM.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/HAFIZ A KASSIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 07/13/2026
Prosecution Insights