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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1-20 are subject to review.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/18/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 7 recites "evaluating each of the compressed models based on at least one metric" which does not further limit its parent Claim 1 as Claim 1 recites "evaluating each compressed model in the set of compressed models based on at least one metric".
Claim 17 recites "evaluating each of the compressed models based on at least one metric" which does not further limit its parent Claim 11 as Claim 11 recites "evaluating each compressed model in the set of compressed models based on at least one metric".
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more.
Step 1 – is the claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claims 1-10 are directed to a “method” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a process.
Claims 11-20 are directed to a “non-transitory computer-readable medium” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a manufacture.
Regarding Claim 1
Steps 2A Prong 1 – is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea?
Yes, Claim 1 recites an abstract idea, substantially as follows:
“filtering a catalog of compression algorithms based on the input to identify a set of compression algorithms;” – is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process i.e., filtering or identifying a set of algorithms is analogous to observing the input and performing an evaluation. Observation and evaluation are concepts performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)), and may be performed with the aid of pen and paper, or using a computer as a tool.
“evaluating each compressed model in the set of compressed models based on at least one metric; and” – is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process i.e., evaluation and observation are concepts performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04.(a)(2)(III)(C)), and may be performed with the aid of pen and paper, or using a computer as a tool.
“ranking the set of compressed models.”– is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process i.e., evaluation and observation are concepts performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)), and may be performed with the aid of pen and paper, or using a computer as a tool.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, Claim 1 does not include additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitation(s):
“receiving an input at a model compression service, wherein the input includes a model file and the model compression service is configured to generate compressed models;” – is merely a recitation of an insignificant extra-solution data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“generating a set of compressed models using the set of compression algorithms;” – is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment directed towards the technology of model generation (see MPEP 2106.06(h)), as the identification of compression algorithms stated in the mental process above is used for the field of use of generating models. Therefore, this limitation fails to integrate the judicial exception.
Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.04).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, Claim 1 does not include additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s):
“receiving an input at a model compression service, wherein the input includes a model file and the model compression service is configured to generate compressed models;” – the broadest reasonable interpretation of this imitation is found to be merely receiving data, which is analogous to receiving or transmitting data over a network, considered WURC under MPEP2106.05(d)(II)(i).
“generating a set of compressed models using the set of compression algorithms;” ;” – is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment directed towards the technology of model generation (see MPEP 2106.06(h)) and fails to amount to more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05).
Regarding Claim 2
Steps 2A Prong 1 – is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea?
No, Claim 2 does not recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, Claim 2 does not include additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitation(s):
“wherein the input further includes at least one of an intended application, a dataset, and/or a target execution environment.” – is merely a recitation of an insignificant extra-solution data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.04).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, Claim 2 does not include additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s):
“wherein the input further includes at least one of an intended application, a dataset, and/or a target execution environment.” – the broadest reasonable interpretation of this imitation is found to be merely receiving data, which is analogous to receiving or transmitting data over a network, considered WURC under MPEP2106.05(d)(II)(i).
Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05).
Regarding Claim 3
Steps 2A Prong 1 – is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea?
Yes, Claim 3 recites an abstract idea, substantially as follows:
“wherein filtering the catalog of compression algorithms includes comparing the input to each of the compression algorithms, wherein compression algorithms that are not suitable for the input are not included in the set of compression algorithms.” – is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process i.e., observations, evaluations, and judgements are concepts performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)), and may be performed with the aid of pen and paper, or using a computer as a tool.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, Claim 3 does not include additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, Claim 3 does not include additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 4
Steps 2A Prong 1 – is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea?
Yes, Claim 4 recites an abstract idea, substantially as follows:
“further comprising performing an analysis on the compression algorithms in the catalog, wherein consistently low ranked compression algorithms are removed from the catalog.” – is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process i.e., observation and evaluation are concepts performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)), and may be performed with the aid of pen and paper, or using a computer as a tool.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, Claim 4 does not include additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, Claim 4 does not include additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 5
Steps 2A Prong 1 – is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea?
Yes, Claim 5 recites an abstract idea, substantially as follows:
“further comprising performing a smart guided search based on telemetry data of previous executions to determine a set of hyperparameters to be applied to the compression algorithms that generate the compressed models.” – is directed to the abstract idea of mathematical concepts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)) as it is describing using a smart guided search based on data to compute hyperparameters, which is considered to be a mathematical calculation.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, Claim 5 does not include additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, Claim 5 does not include additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 6
Steps 2A Prong 1 – is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea?
No, Claim 6 does not recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, Claim 6 does not include additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitation(s):
“further comprising generating at least one compressed model from each compression algorithm in the set of compression algorithms, wherein each compressed model for a particular compression algorithm is associated with different hyperparameters.” – is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment directed towards the technology of model generation (see MPEP 2106.06(h)) and fails to integrate the judicial exception.
Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.04).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, Claim 6 does not include additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s):
“further comprising generating at least one compressed model from each compression algorithm in the set of compression algorithms, wherein each compressed model for a particular compression algorithm is associated with different hyperparameters.” – is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment directed towards the technology of model generation (see MPEP 2106.06(h)) and does not amount to more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05).
Regarding Claim 7
Steps 2A Prong 1 – is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea?
Yes, Claim 7 recites an abstract idea, substantially as follows:
“further comprising evaluating each of the compressed models based on at least one metric.”– is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process i.e., evaluation and observation are concepts performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)), and may be performed with the aid of pen and paper, or using a computer as a tool.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, Claim 7 does not include additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, Claim 7 does not include additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 8
Steps 2A Prong 1 – is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea?
No, Claim 8 does not recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, Claim 8 does not include additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitation(s):
“wherein the at least one metric includes at least one of an execution time, accuracy, a quality metric, a memory footprint, perplexity and/or a metric correlated to execution of the compressed model.” – is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment directed towards the technology of model compression/distillation (see MPEP 2106.06(h)) and fails to integrate the judicial exception.
Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.04).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, Claim 8 does not include additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s):
“wherein the at least one metric includes at least one of an execution time, accuracy, a quality metric, a memory footprint, perplexity and/or a metric correlated to execution of the compressed model.” – is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment directed towards the technology of model compression/distillation (see MPEP 2106.06(h)) and fails to amount to more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05).
Regarding Claim 9
Steps 2A Prong 1 – is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea?
Yes, Claim 9 recites an abstract idea, substantially as follows:
“further comprising ranking the compressed models in each of the at least one metric.” – is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process i.e., evaluation and observation are concepts performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)), and may be performed with the aid of pen and paper, or using a computer as a tool.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, Claim 9 does not include additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, Claim 9 does not include additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 10
Steps 2A Prong 1 – is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea?
No, Claim 10 does not recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, Claim 10 does not include additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitation(s):
“further comprising presenting the rankings to a user, and delivering the compressed model selected by the user.” – the broadest reasonable interpretation of this imitation is found to be merely outputting data, which is analogous to receiving or transmitting data over a network, considered WURC under MPEP2106.05(d)(II)(i).
Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.04).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, Claim 10 does not include additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s):
“further comprising presenting the rankings to a user, and delivering the compressed model selected by the user.” – the broadest reasonable interpretation of this imitation is found to be merely outputting data, which is analogous to receiving or transmitting data over a network, considered WURC under MPEP2106.05(d)(II)(i).
Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05).
Regarding Claim 11
Steps 2A Prong 11 – is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea?
Yes, Claim 11 recites an abstract idea, substantially as follows:
“filtering a catalog of compression algorithms based on the input to identify a set of compression algorithms;” – is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process i.e., filtering or identifying a set of algorithms is analogous to observing the input and performing an evaluation. Observation and evaluation are concepts performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)), and may be performed with the aid of pen and paper, or using a computer as a tool.
“evaluating each compressed model in the set of compressed models based on at least one metric; and” – is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process i.e., evaluation and observation are concepts performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04.(a)(2)(III)(C)), and may be performed with the aid of pen and paper, or using a computer as a tool.
“ranking the set of compressed models.”– is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process i.e., evaluation and observation are concepts performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)), and may be performed with the aid of pen and paper, or using a computer as a tool.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, Claim 11 does not include additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitation(s):
“receiving an input at a model compression service, wherein the input includes a model file and the model compression service is configured to generate compressed models;” – is merely a recitation of an insignificant extra-solution data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“generating a set of compressed models using the set of compression algorithms;” – is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment directed towards the technology of model generation (see MPEP 2106.06(h)), as the identification of compression algorithms stated in the mental process above is used for the field of use of generating models. Therefore, this limitation fails to integrate the judicial exception.
Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.04).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, Claim 11 does not include additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s):
“receiving an input at a model compression service, wherein the input includes a model file and the model compression service is configured to generate compressed models;” – the broadest reasonable interpretation of this imitation is found to be merely receiving data, which is analogous to receiving or transmitting data over a network, considered WURC under MPEP2106.05(d)(II)(i).
“generating a set of compressed models using the set of compression algorithms;” ;” – is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment directed towards the technology of model generation (see MPEP 2106.06(h)) and fails to amount to more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05).
Regarding Claim 12
Steps 2A Prong 1 – is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea?
No, Claim 12 does not recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, Claim 12 does not include additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitation(s):
“wherein the input further includes at least one of an intended application, a dataset, and/or a target execution environment.” – is merely a recitation of an insignificant extra-solution data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.04).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, Claim 12 does not include additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s):
“wherein the input further includes at least one of an intended application, a dataset, and/or a target execution environment.” – the broadest reasonable interpretation of this imitation is found to be merely receiving data, which is analogous to receiving or transmitting data over a network, considered WURC under MPEP2106.05(d)(II)(i).
Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05).
Regarding Claim 13
Steps 2A Prong 1 – is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea?
Yes, Claim 13 recites an abstract idea, substantially as follows:
“wherein filtering the catalog of compression algorithms includes comparing the input to each of the compression algorithms, wherein compression algorithms that are not suitable for the input are not included in the set of compression algorithms.” – is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process i.e., observations, evaluations, and judgements are concepts performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)), and may be performed with the aid of pen and paper, or using a computer as a tool.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, Claim 13 does not include additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, Claim 13 does not include additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 14
Steps 2A Prong 1 – is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea?
Yes, Claim 14 recites an abstract idea, substantially as follows:
“further comprising performing an analysis on the compression algorithms in the catalog, wherein consistently low ranked compression algorithms are removed from the catalog.” – is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process i.e., observation and evaluation are concepts performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)), and may be performed with the aid of pen and paper, or using a computer as a tool.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, Claim 14 does not include additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, Claim 14 does not include additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 15
Steps 2A Prong 1 – is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea?
Yes, Claim 15 recites an abstract idea, substantially as follows:
“further comprising performing a smart guided search based on telemetry data of previous executions to determine a set of hyperparameters to be applied to the compression algorithms that generate the compressed models.” – is directed to the abstract idea of mathematical concepts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)) as it is describing using a smart guided search based on data to compute hyperparameters, which is considered to be a mathematical calculation.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, Claim 15 does not include additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, Claim 15 does not include additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 16
Steps 2A Prong 1 – is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea?
No, Claim 16 does not recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, Claim 16 does not include additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitation(s):
“further comprising generating at least one compressed model from each compression algorithm in the set of compression algorithms, wherein each compressed model for a particular compression algorithm is associated with different hyperparameters.” – is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment directed towards the technology of model generation (see MPEP 2106.06(h)) and fails to integrate the judicial exception.
Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.04).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, Claim 16 does not include additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s):
“further comprising generating at least one compressed model from each compression algorithm in the set of compression algorithms, wherein each compressed model for a particular compression algorithm is associated with different hyperparameters.” – is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment directed towards the technology of model generation (see MPEP 2106.06(h)) and does not amount to more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05).
Regarding Claim 17
Steps 2A Prong 1 – is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea?
Yes, Claim 17 recites an abstract idea, substantially as follows:
“further comprising evaluating each of the compressed models based on at least one metric.”– is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process i.e., evaluation and observation are concepts performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)), and may be performed with the aid of pen and paper, or using a computer as a tool.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, Claim 17 does not include additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, Claim 17 does not include additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 18
Steps 2A Prong 1 – is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea?
No, Claim 18 does not recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, Claim 18 does not include additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitation(s):
“wherein the at least one metric includes at least one of an execution time, accuracy, a quality metric, a memory footprint, perplexity and/or a metric correlated to execution of the compressed model.” – is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment directed towards the technology of model compression/distillation (see MPEP 2106.06(h)) and fails to integrate the judicial exception.
Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.04).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, Claim 18 does not include additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s):
“wherein the at least one metric includes at least one of an execution time, accuracy, a quality metric, a memory footprint, perplexity and/or a metric correlated to execution of the compressed model.” – is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment directed towards the technology of model compression/distillation (see MPEP 2106.06(h)) and fails to amount to more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05).
Regarding Claim 19
Steps 2A Prong 1 – is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea?
Yes, Claim 19 recites an abstract idea, substantially as follows:
“further comprising ranking the compressed models in each of the at least one metric.” – is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process i.e., evaluation and observation are concepts performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)), and may be performed with the aid of pen and paper, or using a computer as a tool.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, Claim 19 does not include additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, Claim 19 does not include additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 20
Steps 2A Prong 1 – is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea?
No, Claim 20 does not recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, Claim 20 does not include additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitation(s):
“further comprising presenting the rankings to a user, and delivering the compressed model selected by the user.” – the broadest reasonable interpretation of this imitation is found to be merely outputting data, which is analogous to receiving or transmitting data over a network, considered WURC under MPEP2106.05(d)(II)(i).
Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.04).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, Claim 20 does not include additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s):
“further comprising presenting the rankings to a user, and delivering the compressed model selected by the user.” – the broadest reasonable interpretation of this imitation is found to be merely outputting data, which is analogous to receiving or transmitting data over a network, considered WURC under MPEP2106.05(d)(II)(i).
Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Paulitsch, Christoph (US 20230297837 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Paulitsch” and further in view of Turgeman, Lior (US 20210012187 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Turgeman”.
Regarding Claim 1
Paulitsch discloses:
“receiving an input at a model compression service, wherein the input includes a model file and the model compression service is configured to generate compressed models;” (Paulitsch at [0070] According to the third embodiment, the following input data I is provided: a type of analysis, a strategy, an AI model [Examiner Note: mapped to model file], dataset, model compression technique expert selection rule, constraints. The following is generated as output data O: compressed model, optimal compression technique.)
“filtering a catalog of compression algorithms based on the input to identify a set of compression algorithms;” (Paulitsch at [0019] The expert rule assigns to an AI-based model [Examiner Note: mapped to the input] a specific set of model compression techniques.; Paulitsch at [0036] According to an embodiment, the expert rule relates an artificial intelligence-based model to the model compression techniques of the set of model compression techniques based on condition of the artificial intelligence-based model or data needed for training or executing the artificial intelligence-based model.) [Examiner Note: the expert rule is mapped to a filter, as it identifies or ‘filters’ a specific set of compression algorithms from a bigger set i.e. catalog of compression algorithms]
“generating a set of compressed models using the set of compression algorithms;” (Paulitsch at [0022] In a test phase, the metrics for all different compression techniques are determined by generating a compressed model for each of the model compression techniques [Examiner Note: mapped to a set of compressed models] and the results are compared to choose the best model compression technique.)
“evaluating each compressed model in the set of compressed models based on at least one metric; and” (Paulitsch at [0020] The metrics characterize [Examiner Note: mapped to evaluating] compressed models, which have been compressed with the model compression techniques in terms of satisfying one or more constraints. The metrics [Examiner Note: mapped to based on at least one metric] reflect a value of the compressed model and therefore of the model compression technique used.)
However, Paulitsch does not disclose:
“ranking the set of compressed models.”
On the other hand, Turgeman discloses:
“ranking the set of compressed models.” (Turgeman at [0042] For example, a user interface may enable a user to specify an objective and generate a ranked list of top ranked DL models, which are ranked in accordance with the specified objective.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Paulitsch with the above teachings of Turgeman by delivering the compressed model, as taught by Paulitsch, and presenting a ranked list of models for the user to choose from, as taught by Turgeman.
The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve learning performance via model compression as suggested by Turgeman at [0012]: ”The techniques described herein improve learning performance by provide a more efficient utilization of the limited computation and resources at the edge”.
As per claim 11, this is a computer readable medium claim corresponding to method Claim 1, and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding Claim 2
Paulitsch in view of Turgeman discloses “The method of claim 1,” and the limitations are shown in the rejection above. Paulitsch further discloses:
“wherein the input further includes at least one of an intended application, a dataset, and/or a target execution environment.” (Paulitsch at [0070] According to the third embodiment, the following input data I is provided: a type of analysis, a strategy [Examiner Note: type of analysis and strategy is mapped to intended application], an AI model, dataset, model compression technique expert selection rule, constraints.)
As per Claim 12, this is a computer readable medium claim corresponding to method Claim 2, and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding Claim 3
Paulitsch in view of Turgeman discloses “The method of claim 1,” and the limitations are shown in the rejection above. Paulitsch further discloses:
“wherein filtering the catalog of compression algorithms includes comparing the input to each of the compression algorithms, wherein compression algorithms that are not suitable for the input are not included in the set of compression algorithms.” (Paulitsch at [0019] The expert rule assigns to an AI-based model [Examiner Note: mapped to the input] a specific set of model compression techniques. [Examiner Note: the techniques that are not in the specific set are mapped to algorithms that are not suitable]; Paulitsch at [0036] According to an embodiment, the expert rule relates an artificial intelligence-based model to the model compression techniques [Examiner Note: mapped to comparing the input to each of the compression algorithms] of the set of model compression techniques based on condition of the artificial intelligence-based model or data needed for training or executing the artificial intelligence-based model.)
As per Claim 13, this is a computer readable claim corresponding to method Claim 3, and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding Claim 7
Paulitsch in view of Turgeman discloses “The method of claim 1,” and the limitations are shown in the rejection above. Paulitsch further discloses:
“further comprising evaluating each of the compressed models based on at least one metric.” (Paulitsch at [0020] The metrics characterize compressed models [Examiner Note: mapped to evaluating], which have been compressed with the model compression techniques in terms of satisfying one or more constraints. The metrics [Examiner Note: mapped to based on at least one metric] reflect a value of the compressed model and therefore of the model compression technique used.)
As per Claim 17, this is a computer readable medium claim corresponding to method Claim 7, and is rejected for similar reasons
Regarding Claim 8
Paulitsch in view of Turgeman discloses “The method of claim 7,” and the limitations are shown in the rejection above. Paulitsch further discloses:
“wherein the at least one metric includes at least one of an execution time, accuracy, a quality metric, a memory footprint, perplexity and/or a metric correlated to execution of the compressed model.” (Paulitsch at [0041] The reference metric might be influenced by the most important constraints. For example, the reference metric might be the accuracy of a compressed AI-based model.; Paulitsch [0034] According to an embodiment, the constraints reflect hardware or software constraints of an executing system for execution of a compressed model of the artificial intelligence-based model compressed with the model compression technique. Paulitsch at [0035] For example, the constraints are one or more of a speed compression ratio, a memory compression ratio, a hardware memory allocation, a hardware acceleration, a required inference time, a dimensionality reduction requirement, an accuracy requirement, a docker container characteristic, a software license availability, a software license version, and a training data necessity.)
As per Claim 18, this is a computer readable medium claim corresponding to method Claim 8, and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding Claim 9
Paulitsch in view of Turgeman discloses “The method of claim 8”, and the limitations are shown in the rejection above.
However, Paulitsch does not disclose:
“further comprising ranking the compressed models in each of the at least one metric”
On the other hand, Turgeman discloses:
“further comprising ranking the compressed models in each of the at least one metric” (Turgeman at [0042] For example, a user interface may enable a user to specify an objective and generate a ranked list of top ranked DL models, which are ranked in accordance with the specified objective.)
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Paulitsch with Turgeman, as set forth in Claim 1, is equally applicable to Claim 9.
As per Claim 19, this is a computer readable medium claim corresponding to method Claim 19, and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding Claim 10
Paulitsch in view of Turgeman discloses “The method of Claim 9,” and the limitations are shown in the rejection above.
However, Paulitsch fails to disclose:
“further comprising presenting the rankings to a user, and delivering the compressed model selected by the user.”
On the other hand, Turgeman discloses:
“further comprising presenting the rankings to a user, and delivering the compressed model selected by the user.” (Turgeman at [0042] For example, a user interface may enable a user to specify an objective and generate a ranked list of top ranked DL models, which are ranked in accordance with the specified objective. The top ranked models may be displayed to the user, allowing the user to select the one or more of the DL models for deployment [Examiner Note: mapped to delivering the model selected by the user].)
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Paulitsch with Turgeman, as set forth in Claim 1, is equally applicable to Claim 10.
As per Claim 20, this is a computer readable claim corresponding to method Claim 10, and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulitsch in view of Turgeman and further in view of Cross, Jonathan (US 20170315523 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Cross”.
Regarding Claim 4
Paulitsch in view of Turgeman discloses “The method of claim 1,” and the limitations are shown in the rejection above. Paulitsch further discloses:
“further comprising performing an analysis on the compression algorithms in the catalog” (Paulitsch at [0022] In a test phase, the metrics for all different compression techniques are determined [Examiner Note: mapped to performing an analysis on the compression algorithms] by generating a compressed model for each of the model compression techniques and the results are compared to choose the best model compression technique.) [Examiner Note: the metrics are using to perform an evaluation or analysis of each model compression technique]
However, Paulitsch in view of Turgeman does not disclose:
“wherein consistently low ranked compression algorithms are removed from the catalog.”
On the other hand, Cross discloses:
“wherein consistently low ranked compression algorithms are removed from the catalog.” (Cross at [0026] For example, at least some embodiments maintain multiple different such models, and repeatedly evaluate the various models' current performance, such as to enable a “best” model (with respect to one or more defined evaluation criteria) to be chosen and used at a given time from the multiple models, as well as to optionally remove one or more “worst” models (again with respect to one or more defined evaluation criteria, whether the same as or different from the criteria used for evaluating the best model) from the group of multiple models in use.; Cross at [0157] In some embodiments and situations, the assessment may include ranking the forecasting model(s) with respect to one or more criteria, such as accuracy. The routine then continues to block 1040 to optionally modify the forecasting models that are part of the pool, such as to remove one or more existing models from the pool based on the analysis of their past performance (e.g., to remove the lowest ranked M forecasting models)) [Examiner Note: removing lowest ranked models based on their past performance is mapped to removing consistently low ranked algorithms]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Paulitsch and Turgeman with the above teachings of Cross by using a method of selecting a best technique for model compression, as taught by Paulitsch and Turgeman, and a method of removing consistently low ranked models, as taught by Cross.
The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to choose a best ranked model based on accuracy and performance as suggested by Cross at [0157]: “In some embodiments and situations, the assessment may include ranking the forecasting model(s) with respect to one or more criteria, such as accuracy. The routine then continues to block 1040 to optionally modify the forecasting models that are part of the pool, such as to remove one or more existing models from the pool based on the analysis of their past performance (e.g., to remove the lowest ranked M forecasting models)”.
As per Claim 14, this is a computer readable medium claim corresponding to method Claim 4, and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulitsch in view of Turgeman and further in view of Jinlong, Hou (CN 110163367 A) hereinafter referred to as “Jinlong”.
Regarding Claim 5
Paulitsch in view of Turgeman discloses “The method of claim 1,” and the limitations are shown in the rejection above.
However, Paulitsch in view of Turgeman fails to disclose:
“further comprising performing a smart guided search based on telemetry data of previous executions to determine a set of hyperparameters to be applied to the compression algorithms that generate the compressed models.”
On the other hand, Jinlong discloses:
“further comprising performing a smart guided search based on telemetry data of previous executions to determine a set of hyperparameters to be applied to the compression algorithms that generate the compressed models.” (Jinlong at Abstract: if the coincidence degree of the performance parameter of the candidate compression result corresponding to the first compression and the compression preference configuration does not meet the preset condition, executing the second compression; and continuing to generate a parameter adjustment strategy [Examiner Note: adjusting parameters based on previous executions mapped to using telemetry data of previous executions to determine hyperparameters] to adjust the compression algorithm component and the algorithm hyper-parameter value used by the next compression [Examiner Note: mapped to determine a set of hyperparameters to be applied to the compression algorithms to generate the compressed models] until the coincidence degree of the performance parameter of the candidate compression result corresponding to the certain compression and the compression preference configuration meets a preset condition.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Paulitsch and Turgeman with the above teachings of Jinlong by using a method selecting a best technique for model compression, as taught by Paulitsch and Turgeman, and identifying hyperparameters for the compression algorithms based on results of previous executions, as taught by Jinlong.
The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve model compression efficiency as suggested by Jinlong at Abstract: "A compression algorithm does not need to be adjusted manually, so that the influence caused by human experience is avoided, and the compression efficiency is improved."
As per Claim 15, this is a computer readable medium claim corresponding to method Claim 5, and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding Claim 6
Paulitsch in view of Turgeman and further in view of Jinlong discloses “The method of claim 5,” and the limitations are shown in the rejection above. Paulitsch further discloses:
“further comprising generating at least one compressed model from each compression algorithm in the set of compression algorithms.” (Paulitsch at [0022] In a test phase, the metrics for all different compression techniques are determined by generating a compressed model for each of the model compression techniques and the results are compared to choose the best model compression technique.)
However, Paulitsch fails to disclose:
“wherein each compressed model for a particular compression algorithm is associated with different hyperparameters.”
On the other hand, Jinlong discloses:
“wherein each compressed model for a particular compression algorithm is associated with different hyperparameters.” (Jinlong at Abstract: The method comprises the steps of obtaining a to-be-compressed model and compression preference configuration for the to-be-compressed model; determining a compression algorithm component and a corresponding algorithm hyper-parameter value [Examiner Note: mapped to based on at least one metric] according to the model type and the compression preference configuration of a model to be compressed, and using the compression algorithm component and the algorithm hyper-parameter value to carry out first compression on the to-be-compressed model to obtain a candidate compression result corresponding to the first compression;)
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Paulitsch and Turgeman with Jinlong, as set forth in Claim 5, is equally applicable to Claim 6.
As per Claim 16, this is a computer readable medium claim corresponding to method Claim 6, and is rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20240232686 A1 – recites methods of model compression with sets of candidate compression schemes.
US 20220179829 A1 – recites methods of binary dataset compression and using a recommendation engine to determine a best suited compression algorithm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMIYAH KABIR whose telephone number is (571)270-0722. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, David Yi can be reached at (571) 270-7519. 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.
/SAMIYAH KABIR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2126
/DAVID YI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2126
Prosecution Insights