CTFR 18/459,239 CTFR 74519 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION This communication is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 04 March 2026. Claims 1, 8, 15, 22, 25 and 26 have been amended. Claims 1-28 are currently pending. The rejections are as stated below. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted in this application on 04 March 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner. The initialed copies of the 1449 are enclosed herewith. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 (exemplary) recites a series of steps for managing tasks by swapping or replacing adapters or modules to perform different tasks. The claim is directed to a process, which is a statutory category of invention. The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. Independent method claims 1, similarly apparatus claim 8, computer readable medium claim 15 and apparatus claim 22 recite the limitations of analyzing a first model and one or more adapters, the first model is pre-trained and each of the one or more adapters is configured with an architecture and parameters for performing a different downstream task of a set of downstream tasks; defining a default adapter based on a capacity of the one or more adapters; the capacity comprising a maximum number of layers covered by any of the one or more adapters and a maximum number of parameters at each covered layer across the one or more adapters and applying the default adapter to the model to replace an adapter of the one or more adapters for a different task, a static graph corresponding to the first model remaining unchanged, wherein only weights of the default adapter are updated in memory during the context switch . These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via managing relationships between data or modules, but for the recitation of generic computer components, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed by a method of organizing human activity. Accordingly, it is clear that exemplary independent claim 1 recites steps directed to managing relationships between data or modules (including following rules or instructions) that, under the Revised Guidance, fall under the category of abstract ideas related to “certain methods of organizing human activity.” See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). Accordingly, independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The recited judicial exception may be integrated into a practical application by identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitation of a processor, a neural network model, one or more adapters, a context switch and an artificial intelligence (AI) acceleration device to perform the steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of processing data (see Applicant’s specification figure 1 and ¶¶ 0030 and 0032). This generic computer limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Also, these limitations are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim is directed to the abstract idea. Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a server (using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the server at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. The analysis above applies to the statutory category of invention of claims1, 8, 15 and 22. Furthermore, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-21 and 23-28 do not add limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea. The dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claims. Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claims 3-6, 10-13, 17-20 and 24-27 include the additional elements of a second neural network, a second default adapter and a large language model respectively. As discussed above with respect to the independent claims, the second neural network, the second default adapter and the large language model in the steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic model performing a generic computer function of processing data. The limitations are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea. As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the computer at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept. The remaining dependent claims do not add limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Dependent claims, recite additional limitations and steps. However, as mentioned above with respect to the independent claims, the claimed limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Also, these limitations are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea. These claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply steps performed by a generic computer. The claim merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a device, and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic device to merely carry out the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, claims 1-28 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed on 04 March 2026 with respect to claims 22-28 have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments are deemed to be persuasive and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is withdrawn. However, the rejections of claims 1-28 under 35 USC § 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter is maintained. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more. The proposed amendments do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. The claims apply the abstract idea on the computer system at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. Applicant argues in substance that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and would amount to significantly more. Examiner respectfully disagrees, the claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem/internet-centric problem. Limiting the use of an abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment’ does not confer patent eligibility as this cannot be considered an improvement to computer or technology and so cannot be “significantly more.” The claims here are directed to the use of generic technology in a well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. The technology implemented in the instant application is useful for selecting a default configuration and performing task switching, but the additional elements are not a technological solution to a technological problem, or a solution to the problem introduced by the technology itself. Rather, the additional elements simply limit the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment. The courts found that “… if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . . a computer,’ that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2358. The claimed invention does not indicate that specialized computer hardware is necessary to implement the claimed systems, similar to the claims at issue in Alice Corp. See Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2360 (determining that the hardware recited in the claims was “purely functional and generic,” and did not “offer [] a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers”). A claim may be found to be eligible if it integrates a judicial exception into a practical application as cited by Applicant. However, examiner notes that "claiming the improved efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not provide an inventive concept (see MPEP §2106.05(f)(2).) Claiming improved data processing efficiency inherent with applying any improvement to the judicial exception itself on a computer does not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. -see MPEP 2106.05(f). The instant claims do not attempt to solve an unconventional technological solution. Using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea and the way the information is processed and displayed does not make it less abstract. The claimed use of computer elements recited at a high level of generality is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are generic computer components claimed to perform their basic functions. The processor is a general-purpose processor that performs general-purpose functions. The recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply a generic recitation of a computer processor performing its generic computer functions. Accordingly, claims are ineligible. In contrast, the instant claims apply generic neural networks model to a new field (switching tasks) using artificial intelligence (AI) acceleration device. The focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem, rather they are directed to defining a default adapter based on capacity. Dependent claims do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claims. The dependent claims do not add limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea. The dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claims. The claims merely amount to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a processor, and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic processor to merely carry out the abstract idea itself. Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-28 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101. For these reasons the rejection under 35 USC § 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter set forth in this office action is maintained. Conclusion 07-39 AIA Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hani Kazimi whose telephone number is (571) 272-6745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM to 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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on (571) 270-1836. 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. Respectfully Submitted /HANI M KAZIMI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691 Application/Control Number: 18/459,239 Page 2 Art Unit: 3691 Application/Control Number: 18/459,239 Page 3 Art Unit: 3691 Application/Control Number: 18/459,239 Page 4 Art Unit: 3691 Application/Control Number: 18/459,239 Page 5 Art Unit: 3691 Application/Control Number: 18/459,239 Page 6 Art Unit: 3691 Application/Control Number: 18/459,239 Page 7 Art Unit: 3691 Application/Control Number: 18/459,239 Page 8 Art Unit: 3691 Application/Control Number: 18/459,239 Page 9 Art Unit: 3691 Application/Control Number: 18/459,239 Page 10 Art Unit: 3691 Application/Control Number: 18/459,239 Page 11 Art Unit: 3691 Application/Control Number: 18/459,239 Page 12 Art Unit: 3691
Prosecution Insights