CTNF 18/526,334 CTNF 90534 DETAILED ACTION 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. Style In this action unitalicized bold is used for claim language , while italicized bold is used for emphasis . Information Disclosure Statement All information disclosure statements were submitted prior to the first action and are incompliance with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97. Accordingly, they have been considered. Applicant Reply “The claims may be amended by canceling particular claims, by presenting new claims, or by rewriting particular claims as indicated in 37 CFR 1.121(c). The requirements of 37 CFR 1.111(b) must be complied with by pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims patentable over the references in presenting arguments in support of new claims and amendments. . . . The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. . . . An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive . See MPEP § 714.” MPEP § 714.02. Generic statements or listing of numerous paragraphs do not “specifically point out the support for” claim amendments. “With respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas , 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing MPEP § 2163.04 which provides that a ‘simple statement such as ‘applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation ‘___’ in the application as filed’ may be sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported.’)” MPEP § 2163(II)(A). Election/Restrictions The claims are not subject to a restriction because they did not present an undue examination burden. It is noted however, that the claims recite various system configurations in the alternative. For instance, claim 5 recites a receiver node that is a quantum device or a classical device. Similarly, claim 6 recites a source node that is a quantum device or a classical device. Amending the claims to include multiple different configurations, none of which have been chosen in the original claims, may result in a restriction requirement. For instance, claims to a receiver node that is a quantum device and separately claiming a receiver node that is a classical device would be mutually exclusive and would likely be restrictable. The Specification also uses “release criterion” in reference to various aspects of quantum computing in some parts of the Specification, while using the term in reference to various aspects of buffering in other locations. See rejection under § 112b, below. Using the same term to describe these unrelated ideas does not preclude a determination that limitations to buffering and limitations to evaluating aspects of quantum computing are mutually exclusive and independent or distinct. 1 This is noted because, while the examination burden of this claim set is not undue, the Specification appears to include multiple unrelated configurations that would support multiple independent and distinct or mutually exclusive claims. The MPEP indicates that Applicants should be informed of a restriction as soon as possible, but the Manual does permit restrictions after first action. See MPEP § 811. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 AIA Claim s 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Generally : separately listed claim elements are construed as distinct components, that all claim terms must be given weight, there is presumed to be a difference in meaning and scope when different words or phrases are used in separate claims, and repeated and consistent descriptions in the specification indicate the proper scope of a claimed term. “[C]laims must ‘conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description.’ 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1).” Phillips v. AWH Corp. , 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (as cited in MPEP § 2111). Therefore, use of two different terms in the claims that both rely on the description of a single structure in the Specification may render at least one term indefinite because there is no way to determine which term should be construed in view of the description of the single structure. All independent claims substantially recite “ a receiver component that receives, from a source node, a quantum input and a release criterion associated with the quantum input; and a computation component that performs a computation based on the quantum input, in a buffering environment, to generate a result that meets the release criterion. ” It is not clear whether the “quantum input” refers to physical quantum states such as transmission of physical qubits using polarized light or some other quantum media, or if the “quantum input” could merely refer to ordinary binary data representing quantum states. The term “quantum input” strongly implies something other than binary inputs modeling quantum states, but the Specification repeatedly and consistently indicates that the buffer receiving the quantum inputs can be a classical computer, which would not be capable of processing received physical quantum states. See e.g. Spec. ¶¶26-27 (“Thus, a buffer can be a classical computational node, a quantum computational node or both, a classical computational node, and a quantum computational node.”) Without any way of objectively determining whether the claimed “quantum input” reads on ordinary binary communications including data related to quantum computing or requires the transfer of physical qubits in quantum form , the claims are indefinite. All independent claims, and claims 2-3, 9-10, and 16-17 recite various operations associated with a “ buffering environment .” Whether or not an operation is withing a “buffering environment” is subjective because there is no way to objectively determine the scope of the “environment.” Further, the ambiguity of this language makes it unclear whether or not inclusion of a buffer in the system, is actually being claimed. The Specification explains, “the buffer can perform computation based on an input to generate a first result. . . . The buffer can perform the computation until the release criterion can be satisfied. In various embodiments, upon generating a result that can satisfy the release criterion, the buffer can perform an additional computation based on the result, and the buffer can release an output of the additional computation to a receiver node.” Spec. ¶25. Performing computations is not ordinarily the domain of buffers, which are generally used to temporarily store so that speed mismatches between other computer elements can be avoided. The “buffer 202” is illustrated in Figures 2, 4, and 5 as including a box containing a laptop and CPU/QPU 204 with an atom printed thereon, as well as including memory 206 illustrated as a crystal with various molecules or atomic particles. Presumably, all of this represents a device capable of carrying out some quantum computing operations. However, this does not clarify what is meant by “buffer environment,” rather tending to show that the conventional term is not being used. In any case, it is unclear what “buffer environment” refers to and reference to the Specification does not clarify the meaning of this term. All independent claims recite “ a receiver component that receives, from a source node . . .” But claim 5 recites “an output component that outputs . . . to a receiver node .” It is not clear whether the “receiver component” and “output component” require a third component, in addition to the source node and the receiver node. While use of “node” and “component” implies distinct claim elements, the similarity of the terms and the omission of any specific claim element associated with the receiver component and the output component (e.g. some sort of quantum accelerator) tends to support the interpretation that the “receiver component” and “output component” could merely be inputs and outputs on the nodes. Reference to figures 4 and 1 support the interpretation that the “input/output component” and are part of a separate system from the input node and output node. But the claims do not recite the separate buffer (i.e. buffer 202) of figure 2, reciting only the ambiguous term “buffering environment.” Further, since the “buffering environment” is used to limit the location of the calculation while being omitted with respect to the input and output components, both components are reasonably understood as potentially not being in the “buffering environment,” making interpretation of the nodes and components as overlapping terms more reasonable. This ambiguity may be overcome by clarifying whether the input/output component(s) are physically separate from the source and receiver nodes. All independent claims substantially recite a computation component that performs a computation based on the quantum input, in a buffering environment, to generate a result that meets the release criterion. ” It is not clear whether “a result” in “a computation . . . to generate a result that meets the release criterion” refers to a statistically acceptable value resulting from a quantum computation , of if the result refers to an acceptable amount of data in a buffer resulting from the computation . While one could argue that “the result” reads on both, it is submitted that using an applicant invented term the claims, then associated the invented term with two completely different concepts is inconsistent with the intent of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The Specification uses “computation” in reference to an operation occurring after the release criterion has been met, making the language “generating a result that meets the release criterion” somewhat inconsistent with the description. See Spec. ¶¶49-56. The Specification provides various examples of “release criteria” that seem related to an acceptable amount of data in a buffer. See Spec. ¶25 (“The release criteria can comprise, time window criteria, convergence criteria, sufficient compression criteria, or criteria for minimum or maximum memory size or dataset size, and so on.”) Further, at least “time window size” and “dataset size” are reasonably related to the amount of data required to perform the calculation but seem inapplicable to a result of the calculation . The Specification further explains “[a]nother release criterion in quantum supercomputing can be a minimum/maximum memory or dataset size. In certain applications, information can be collected until a specified number of data points are acquired, the specified number of data points are exceeded, or a maximum number of the data points are acquired. As such, various embodiments herein can define general release criteria that can apply to different applications in quantum supercomputing.” Spec. ¶46. Similar to the criteria in paragraph 25, these criteria relate to the amount of data required to perform the calculation, and not the result of the calculation. The example in paragraphs 49-56 of the Specification add to the confusion, because steps 2-5 repeat “process[ing] the input” “until a result that can meet the release criterion can be met.” Spec. ¶¶ 52, 54. Once the “result” of the processing meets the release criterion, buffer 202 “can compute the output.” Spec. ¶¶54, 55. See also Spec. ¶¶49-56. Since the only step by step example in the Specification describes “comput[ing] the output” only after the release criteria is met , the description is inconsistent with the claim language. That is, the claims recite the result of a computation that meets the release criterion, and the Specification describes the computation as occurring only after the release criterion has been met . Spec. ¶¶53-56. Evaluating the results of a computation is more consistent with the description later in the Specification. See Spec. ¶61 (“the release criterion for buffer 202 can be defined as enough gates to form a dense circuit layer”) ¶66 (“the release criterion for buffer 202 can be defined as N number of Pauli operators (e.g., “Collect N Pauli operators”), wherein N represents a positive integer representing the minimum number of Pauli operators needed for a task”) and ¶70 (“convergence can be a significant release criterion in quantum supercomputing because quantum computers are probabilistic machines that can collect data over several shots, and results of data collected can be averaged to generate a final answer.”) Note that these criteria are all related to the fidelity of the specific value resulting from the calculation. This leaves only two similarly reasonable ways of construing the claim language. One is directed to determining whether a buffer can implement a computation based on buffering parameters. The other is determining whether the result of a quantum computation meets a criterion related to data fidelity. Claims 4, 11, and 18 recite “ a release criterion .” But the independent claims also recite “ a release criterion .” Since the second instance of the claimed “release criterion” uses the indefinite article, it can be interpreted as either a new claim element, or a subsequent recitation of the “release criterion” from the independent claims, with an antecedent basis issue. It is not clear which interpretation is correct. All dependent claims are rejected as containing the limitations of the claims from which they depend. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and the claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more. Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? All claims are found to be directed to one of the four statutory categories, unless otherwise indicated in this action. Step 2A Prongs One and Two (Alice Step 1): According to Office guidance, claims that read on math do not recite an abstract idea at step 2A1, when the claims fail to refer to the math by name. 2 The MPEP also equates “recit[ing] a judicial exception” with “state[ing]” or “describ[ing]” an abstract idea in the claims. 3 Consistent with this guidance, an abstract idea may be first recited in a dependent claim even though the independent claims read on that abstract idea. Claim limitations which recite any of the abstract idea groupings set forth in the manual are found to be directed, as a whole, to an abstract idea unless otherwise indicated. 4 The claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. 5 To confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea, claims may recite a specific means or method of solving a specific problem in a technological field. 6 Independent Claims 1. A system, comprising: a memory that stores computer-executable components; and a processor that executes the computer-executable components stored in the memory, wherein the computer-executable components comprise: (The claim as a whole is directed to performing a generic mathematical computation. See language below (“computation component that performs a computation based on the quantum input”). This limitation is merely an instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components.) a receiver component that receives, from a source node, a quantum input and a release criterion associated with the quantum input; (Receiving data including “quantum input” and “a release criterion” using generic computer components such as “a receiver component” reads on mere extra-solution activity.) and a computation component that performs a computation based on the quantum input, in a buffering environment, to generate a result that meets the release criterion. (Performing a computation on quantum input to generate a result that reads on a “release criterion” reads on math. Carrying out the computation in “a buffering environment” is merely an instruction to implement the calculation using generic computer components. For rejections of claims 8 and 15, see rejection of claim 1. Independent claim15 is rejected for the reasons given in the rejection of claim 1. The claim also recites “ A computer program product for enabling buffers for streaming in quantum-centric supercomputing, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to: ” perform the techniques of claim 1. This is merely an instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. While “buffers for streaming in quantum-centric supercomputing” are generic computer components, note also that this language is written as an intended use. Step 2B (Alice Step 2): The rejected claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. All additional limitations that do not integrate the claimed judicial exception into a practical application also fail to amount to significantly more, for the reasons given at step 2A2. All limitations found to be extra-solution activity at step 2A2 are found to be WURC, including limitations that read on mere data gathering, data storage, and data input/output/transfer. The claims recite “ a receiver component that receives, from a source node, a quantum input and a release criterion associated with the quantum input [.]” This reads on receiving data. Receiving data is WURC. Should any other claim limitations be rejected at step 2A1 as extra-solution activity but omitted in the section directly above, it should be understood that such limitations are also found to be WURC at this step. Generic data input/output, storage, repetitive processing operations, and generic display of information and have been found to be generic WURC operations that do not transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter, at the Alice step two analysis. 7 Other aspects of generic computing have also been found to be WURC. 8 Further, the description itself may provide support for a finding that claim elements are WURC. The analysis under § 112(a) as to whether a claim element is “so well-known that it need not be described in detail in the patent specification” is the same as the analysis as to whether the claim element is widely prevalent or in common use. 9 Similarly, generic descriptions in the Specification of claimed components and features has been found to support a conclusion that the claimed components were conventional. 10 Improvements to the relevant technology may support a finding that the claims include a patent eligible inventive concept. But some mechanism that results in any asserted improvements must be recited in the claim, and the Specification must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing the improvement. 11 This applies to the dependent claims below. Dependent Claims: 2. The system of claim 1, wherein generating the result comprises performing the computation in the buffering environment for at least a first iteration to generate a first result. (Generating a result from a computation reads on math. The “buffering environment” merely read on use of generic computer components.) 3. The system of claim 2, further comprising: an update component that updates the quantum input based on the first result to generate an updated quantum input, such that performing the computation based on the updated quantum input in the buffering environment generates the result. (Updating quantum input based on a result and performing a computation based on the updated quantum input reads on math. The “buffering environment” merely read on use of generic computer components.) 4. The system of claim 3, wherein the update component further updates the updated quantum input based on the result if the result does not meet a release criterion. (Updating the quantum input when the result does not meet a release criterion (e.g. updating a value until it is statistically acceptable), reads on performing a mathematical operation.) 5. The system of claim 1, further comprising: an output component that outputs the result to a receiver node, (Outputting a result is mere extra-solution activity and WURC.) wherein the receiver node is a quantum device or a classical device. (To the extent this limits scope, it limits to a field of use. Note that limiting to both quantum and classical devices, does not appear to limit at all because it is not clear what device this would exclude.) 6. The system of claim 1, wherein the source node is a quantum device or a classical device. (To the extent this limits scope, it limits to a field of use. Note that limiting to both quantum and classical devices, does not appear to limit at all because it is not clear what device this would exclude.) 7. The system of claim 1, wherein generating the result based on the release criterion increases efficiency of performing computations for a receiver node. (This is an intended use. Intended use language is explained in MPEP §§ 2103 and 2111.02. “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure.” MPEP § 2111.04.) For rejections of claims 9-14, see rejections of claims 2-7. For rejections of claims 16-20, see rejections of claims 2-6. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim (s) s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ravi (US 2024/0378085, filed Oct 2023, no common inventors or assignee.) 1. A system, comprising: a memory that stores computer-executable components; and a processor that executes the computer-executable components stored in the memory, wherein the computer-executable components comprise: (“The quantum computing system also includes a queueing and optimizations (“QaO”) server including at least one classical processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one classical processor, cause the at least one classical processor to” carry out the techniques taught in the reference. Ravi ¶9.) a receiver component that receives, from a source node, a quantum input and a release criterion associated with the quantum input; (Ravi teaches “The quantum computing system also includes a queueing and optimizations (“QaO”) server including . . . to: . . . (ii) receive, from a client device, a request for execution of a quantum program; (iii) add a first job entry to the first job queue for the request, the first job entry includes a quantum circuit for a first job; (iv) perform an optimization process on the quantum circuit of the first job, the optimization process changes the quantum circuit to an updated quantum circuit; (v) transmit the updated quantum circuit to the first quantum computing device, thereby causing the updated quantum circuit to be executed by the first quantum computing device using the plurality of qubits; (vi) receive, from the quantum computing device, execution results from the execution of the updated quantum circuit[.]” Ravi ¶9. Ravi teaches “A queueing and optimizations server (“QaO server”) 110 controls receipt of job requests 140 from requesting devices 144, such as from public client devices 144A (e.g., via a public network 146 such as the Internet) or from private client devices 144B (e.g., via enterprise network, private network, or the like).” Ravi ¶28. “In some embodiments, some factors of the QC score may be tailored by the user (e.g., through the factor coefficients), such as allowing for user-provided or user-specific coefficients of the various factors (e.g., where users can identify priorities for the particular requests, or priorities for all of their requests). ” Ravi ¶104. Note that the description of “release criterion” in the Specification is rather broad, including various buffering considertions as well as various considerations related to quantum computing. See Spec. ¶25 (“The release criteria can comprise, time window criteria, convergence criteria, sufficient compression criteria, or criteria for minimum or maximum memory size or dataset size, and so on.”) ¶46 (“Another release criterion in quantum supercomputing can be a minimum/maximum memory or dataset size. In certain applications, information can be collected until a specified number of data points are acquired, the specified number of data points are exceeded, or a maximum number of the data points are acquired. As such, various embodiments herein can define general release criteria that can apply to different applications in quantum supercomputing.”) ¶¶49-56, ¶61 (“the release criterion for buffer 202 can be defined as enough gates to form a dense circuit layer”) ¶66 (“the release criterion for buffer 202 can be defined as N number of Pauli operators (e.g., “Collect N Pauli operators”), wherein N represents a positive integer representing the minimum number of Pauli operators needed for a task”) and ¶70 (“convergence can be a significant release criterion in quantum supercomputing because quantum computers are probabilistic machines that can collect data over several shots, and results of data collected can be averaged to generate a final answer.”) and a computation component that performs a computation based on the quantum input, in a buffering environment, to generate a result that meets the release criterion. (“For example, in situations with low overall queuing times (e.g., where average queuing times for the selected subset of QCs 132 are below a predetermined threshold), the short wait times are less significant, and thus higher weight may be placed on high fidelity (e.g., on the QCs 132 with higher fidelity scores). In such situations, higher-predicted fidelity QCs 132 may tend to be routinely targeted, and thus may cause those QCs 132 to field more job executions. In some embodiments, the system 100 may be configured to weigh targeting other QCs 132 as the queuing times on those high-fidelity QCs increases. At higher system loads (e.g., higher average queuing times), the system 100 may sacrifice some fidelity for improvements in execution times as the utility function sends jobs 122 to lower-fidelity but lower-queuing-time QCs/job queues 132, 120. . . . [0104] In some embodiments, some factors of the QC score may be tailored by the user (e.g., through the factor coefficients), such as allowing for user-provided or user-specific coefficients of the various factors (e.g., where users can identify priorities for the particular requests, or priorities for all of their requests).” Ravi ¶¶103-104. See also Ravi ¶9 steps v and vi, teaching performance of quantum computations. 2. The system of claim 1, wherein generating the result comprises performing the computation in the buffering environment for at least a first iteration to generate a first result. (Limiting to a “at least a first iteration” does not require more than one iteration. See rejection of claim 1.) 3. The system of claim 2, further comprising: an update component that updates the quantum input based on the first result to generate an updated quantum input, such that performing the computation based on the updated quantum input in the buffering environment generates the result. (“A quantum job (“QC job,” or just “job,” depending on context) encapsulates a single circuit or a batch of circuits that executes on a QC. The circuits within a batched job may be treated as a single task such that all quantum circuits are executed successively, and each circuit in a job may be rapidly re-executed for a particular number of “shots.”” Ravi ¶24. “Results 142, in the context of quantum applications, may include a distribution of the different output bitstrings of the circuit which are measured over each execution on the underlying quantum computing device 132 (e.g., results from the various “shots” performed during execution).” Ravi ¶47. “Requests 140 requiring multiple jobs 122 are referred to herein as “complex requests.” For example, some quantum applications are iterative in nature, requiring multiple jobs 122 to be performed as the algorithm approaches a solution” Ravo ¶49.) 4. The system of claim 3, wherein the update component further updates the updated quantum input based on the result if the result does not meet a release criterion. (“in scenarios where jobs experience extended queuing times , the dynamic characteristics which may have been accounted for during initial job preparation may be very different on the QCs by the time the job is ready for execution, which would result in the job being executed sub-optimally (e.g., with detrimental fidelity or the like) if the job is not reoptimized. Accordingly, the QIP system incorporates re-optimization operations in conjunction with expected execution times and time-sensitive dynamic characteristics of the target QC to maximize execution performance .” Ravi ¶26.) 5. The system of claim 1, further comprising: an output component that outputs the result to a receiver node, wherein the receiver node is a quantum device or a classical device. (“(vi) receive, from the quantum computing device, execution results from the execution of the updated quantum circuit; and (vii) transmit the execution results to the client device.” Ravi ¶9. Note that the source node of claim 1 is not clearly differentiated from the receiver node in this claim. Further, the Specification describes hardware and software on the same device as different components. See Spec. ¶112. This implies that the claimed transmitter node reads on hardware of a device while the receiver node reads on the hardware of the same device (or vice versa). Note that amending to clarify the source node and receiver node are separate physical nodes may clarify the intended scope.) 6. The system of claim 1, wherein the source node is a quantum device or a classical device. (See Ravi Fig. 1.) 7. The system of claim 1, wherein generating the result based on the release criterion increases efficiency of performing computations for a receiver node. (This is an intended use. Intended use language is explained in MPEP §§ 2103 and 2111.02. “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure.” MPEP § 2111.04.) For rejections of claims 8-14, see rejections of claims 1-7. For rejections of claims 15-20, see rejections of claims 1-6. Note that “for enabling buffers for streaming” in the preamble of claim 15 is written as an intended use. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL M KNIGHT whose telephone number is (571) 272-8646. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5 ET. 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, Michelle Bechtold can be reached on (571) 431-0762. 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. PAUL M. KNIGHTExaminerArt Unit 2148 /PAUL M KNIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 2148 Application/Control Number: 18/526,334 Page 2 Art Unit: 2148 Application/Control Number: 18/526,334 Page 3 Art Unit: 2148 Application/Control Number: 18/526,334 Page 4 Art Unit: 2148 Application/Control Number: 18/526,334 Page 5 Art Unit: 2148 Application/Control Number: 18/526,334 Page 6 Art Unit: 2148 Application/Control Number: 18/526,334 Page 7 Art Unit: 2148 Application/Control Number: 18/526,334 Page 8 Art Unit: 2148 Application/Control Number: 18/526,334 Page 9 Art Unit: 2148 Application/Control Number: 18/526,334 Page 10 Art Unit: 2148 Application/Control Number: 18/526,334 Page 11 Art Unit: 2148 Application/Control Number: 18/526,334 Page 13 Art Unit: 2148 Application/Control Number: 18/526,334 Page 14 Art Unit: 2148 Application/Control Number: 18/526,334 Page 15 Art Unit: 2148 Application/Control Number: 18/526,334 Page 17 Art Unit: 2148 Application/Control Number: 18/526,334 Page 18 Art Unit: 2148 Application/Control Number: 18/526,334 Page 19 Art Unit: 2148 Application/Control Number: 18/526,334 Page 21 Art Unit: 2148 Application/Control Number: 18/526,334 Page 22 Art Unit: 2148 1 “Claims to different species are mutually exclusive if one claim recites limitations disclosed for a first species but not a second, while a second claim recites limitations disclosed only for the second species and not the first.” MPEP § 606.04(f). 2 This distinction between claims which read on math and claims which recite an abstract idea is based on official USPTO Guidance. The 2019 Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) Examples instructs examiners that a claim reciting “training the neural network” where the background describes training as “using stochastic learning with backpropagation which is a type of machine learning algorithm that uses the gradient of a mathematical loss function to adjust the weights of the network” “ does not recite any mathematical relationships, formulas, or calculations.” See 2019 SME Example 39, PP. 8-9 (emphasis added). In this example, the plain meaning of “training the neural network” read in light of the disclosure reads on backpropagation using the gradient of a mathematical loss function. See MPEP § 2111.01. In contrast, the 2024 SME Examples instructs examiners that a claim reciting “training, by the computer, the ANN . . . wherein the selected training algorithm includes a backpropagation algorithm and a gradient descent algorithm” does recite an abstract idea because “[t]he plain meaning of [backpropagation algorithm and gradient descent algorithm] are optimization algorithms, which compute neural network parameters using a series of mathematical calculations.” 2024 PEG Example 47, PP. 4-6. The Memorandum of August 4, 2025; Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, P. 3 also directs examiners that “training the neural network” recited in Example 39 merely “involve[s] . . . mathematical concepts” and contrasts claim 2 of example 47 as “referring to [specific] mathematical calculations by name [.]” (Emphasis added.) 3 “For instance, the claims in Diehr . . . clearly stated a mathematical equation . . . and the claims in Mayo . . . clearly stated laws of nature . . . such that the claims ‘set forth’ an identifiable judicial exception. Alternatively, the claims in Alice Corp. . . . described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words ‘intermediated’ or ‘settlement.’” MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A). 4 “By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types. . . . If the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One.” MPEP § 2106.04(a). See also MPEP 2104(a)(2). 5 Step 2A prongs one and two are evaluated individually, consistent with the framework in the MPEP. Evaluation of relationships between abstract ideas and additional elements in one location promotes clarity of the record. 6 “In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. . . . It should be noted that while this consideration is often referred to in an abbreviated manner as the ‘improvements consideration,’ the word ‘improvements’ in the context of this consideration is limited to improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology/technical field, whether in Step 2A Prong Two or in Step 2B.” MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). See also Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M GmbH , 942 F.3d 1143, 1150-1152 (Fed. Cir. 2019). 7 See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) listing operations including “receiving or transmitting data,” “storing and retrieving data in memory,” and “performing repetitive calculations” as WURC. “The claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components , or even a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces, but merely call for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions on a set of generic computer components and display devices .” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A. , 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis added, internal quotes omitted). 8 “But ‘[f]or the role of a computer in a computer-implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.’ Content Extraction , 776 F.3d at 1347-48 (quoting Alice , 134 S. Ct at 2359). Here, the server simply receives data , ‘ extract[s] classification information . . . from the received data,’ and ‘stor[es] the digital images . . . taking into consideration the classification information .’ See ‘295 patent, col. 10 ll. 1-17 (Claim 17). . . . These steps fall squarely within our precedent finding generic computer components insufficient to add an inventive concept to an otherwise abstract idea. Alice , 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (‘Nearly every computer will include a 'communications controller' and a 'data storage unit' capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.’); Content Extraction , 776 F.3d at 1345, 1348 ( ‘storing information’ into memory, and using a computer to ‘translate the shapes on a physical page into typeface characters,’ insufficient confer patent eligibility); Mortg. Grader , 811 F.3d at 1324-25 (generic computer components such as an ‘interface,’ ‘network,’ and ‘database,’ fail to satisfy the inventive concept requirement ); Intellectual Ventures I , 792 F.3d at 1368 ( a ‘database’ and ‘a communication medium’ ‘are all generic computer elements’ ); BuySAFE v. Google, Inc. , 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ( ‘That a computer receives and sends the information over a network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.’ ).” TLI Commc'ns LLC v. AV Auto. , LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614 (Fed. Cir. 2016), Emphasis Added. 9 “The analysis as to whether an element (or combination of elements) is widely prevalent or in common use is the same as the analysis under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as to whether an element is so well-known that it need not be described in detail in the patent specification. See Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC , 818 F.3d 1369, 1377, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (supporting the position that amplification was well-understood, routine, conventional for purposes of subject matter eligibility by observing that the patentee expressly argued during prosecution of the application that amplification was a technique readily practiced by those skilled in the art to overcome the rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph)[.]” MPEP § 2106.05(d)(I). 10 “Similarly, claim elements or combinations of claim elements that are routine, conventional or well-understood cannot transform the claims. (Citing BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc. , 899 F.3d 1281, 1290-1291 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). When the patent's specification ‘describes the components and features listed in the claims generically,’ it ‘support[s] the conclusion that these components and features are conventional.’ Weisner v. Google LLC , 51 F.4th 1073, 1083-84 (Fed. Cir. 2022); see also Beteiro, LLC v. DraftKings Inc. , 104 F.4th 1350, 1357-58 (Fed. Cir. 2024).” Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 113 F.4th 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2024) 11 “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.” MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Prosecution Insights