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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 and corresponding to claims 18-25 and 31 - 42 in the reply filed on 9/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 18 – 25 and 31 – 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claims 18, 32, 33, and 39 the limitations “optimizing the parameters of the neural network are optimized with a goal of ensuring that, during further processing of training examples, the evaluation by the cost function is improved” is not understood by the examiner as the examiner is not exactly sure that the applicant is trying to claim. The applicant should explain in greater detail the step involved in optimizing the parameters, how those steps improve the cost function, and how the cost function relates to the rest of the claimed invention. The examiner will interpret the claims as if the cost function improves accuracy over several a number processing iterations until it reaches its target.
The limitation “selecting a set of particularly relevant parameters based on a predefined criterion” is indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. Based on the predefined criterion, either the parameters are relevant or irrelevant. Describing them as “particularly relevant” does not clarify this determination. The examiner will examine the claims as if the limitation reads “selecting a set of relevant parameters based on a predefined criterion.”
As to claim 19, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “predefined criterion for the relevance of the parameters” in the claim. It seems as if the applicant is trying to use “particularly relevant” and “relevant” interchangeably but in actuality they are two distinct elements.
The limitation “the set of parameters is correct overall” is not understood by the examiner. The applicant should identify the criteria used to determine overall correctness, as a parameter’s correctness depends on the context in which it is evaluated.
Lastly, the claim as a whole is unclear and written as a run-on sentence, making it difficult to determine the subject matter the applicant is trying to claim.
Claims 20– 25, 34 – 38, and 40 – 42 depend independent claims 18, 33, and 39, respectively, and are also rejected.
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 18 – 25 and 31 – 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step One
The claims are directed to a method (claims 18 – 25 and 31), a non-transitory machine-readable data carrier (claims 32 - 38), and a system with structural components (claims 39 – 42). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
As to claim 18,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
evaluating deviations of the outputs from the respective target outputs with a predefined cost function
For example, a person can compare an estimated value with a target value using a fixed rule for measuring error.
optimizing the parameters of the neural network are optimized with a goal of ensuring that, during further processing of training examples, the evaluation by the cost function is improved;
For example, a person can adjust values to reduce errors in future iterations.
selecting a set of particularly relevant parameters based on a predefined criterion.
For example, a person can choose values that meet a predetermined relevance criterion.
for the selected parameters, ascertaining proposed changes as the training contribution based on a result of the optimization.
For example, a person can identify how much to change the selected values based on the adjustments that improved the estimates.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
receiving a complete set of parameters that characterize a behavior of the neural network from a server node;
transmitting the proposed changes to the server node.
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim further recites:
supplying the neural network parameterized with the set of parameters with training examples from a predefined set so that the neural network in each case delivers outputs, wherein the training examples are each labeled with target outputs
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
The client node and server node are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
receiving a complete set of parameters that characterize a behavior of the neural network from a server node;
transmitting the proposed changes to the server node.
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim further recites:
supplying the neural network parameterized with the set of parameters with training examples from a predefined set so that the neural network in each case delivers outputs, wherein the training examples are each labeled with target outputs
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
The client node and server node are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 19,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the predefined criterion for the relevance of the parameters measures a functional dependence of a probability that, for given training examples, the set of parameters is correct overall, on individual parameters.
For example, a person can decide on predetermined criterion based on expected to desired results.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 20,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein an approximation for the probability is established, which includes derivatives: (i) of the probability and/or (ii) of a logarithm of the probability, with respect to individual parameters.
For example, people have been making mathematical approximations and determining probabilities before computers were ever invented
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 21,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the functional dependence of the probability on individual parameters is measured based on Fisher information that the individual parameters contain in relation to a probability distribution of complete sets of parameters for given training examples.
For example, people have been making mathematical approximations and determining probabilities before computers were ever invented
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 22,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the Fisher information of at least one individual parameter is ascertained from functional dependencies of probabilities that the neural network delivers, for individual training examples, the same output as in an optimally parameterized state, on the individual parameter.
For example, people have been making mathematical approximations and determining probabilities before computers were ever invented
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 23,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein, after the optimization, an agreement of outputs of the neural network with respective target outputs is also checked for test examples and/or validation examples, that were not seen during the optimization.
For example, a person can compare the actual outputs to target outputs to develop a conclusion.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 24,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the predefined criterion includes that a measure of a relevance of individual parameters is above a predefined threshold value.
For example, a person can make comparisons to determine relevance.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 25,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the proposed changes include gradients that specify a direction for changes in the selected parameters.
For example, people have been making mathematical approximations and determining probabilities before computers were ever invented
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 31,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites the abstract idea described above in claim 18, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the proposed changes include gradients that specify a direction for changes in the selected parameters.
amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein the proposed changes include gradients that specify a direction for changes in the selected parameters.
amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 32 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
The non-transitory machine-readable data carrier, client node, one or more computers, one or more computer instances, and server node are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 33 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
The non-transitory machine-readable data carrier, client node, one or more computers, one or more computer instances, and server node are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As to claim 34,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
applying, by the client node, the proposed changes to a parameter set specific to the client node to obtain modified values of the selected parameters;
For example, a person can adjust one or more of the parameters as they see fit.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein transmitting the proposed changes comprises transmitting, by the client node, the modified values to the server node as the proposed changes.
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein transmitting the proposed changes comprises transmitting, by the client node, the modified values to the server node as the proposed changes.
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 35,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites the abstract idea described above in claim 18, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
after transmitting the proposed changes, receiving, by the client node from the server node, an updated complete set of parameters of the neural network, wherein the updated complete set incorporates a change obtained by averaging the transmitted proposed changes with proposed changes from at least one other client node;
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim further recites:
performing, by the client node, a further iteration of the supplying, evaluating, optimizing, selecting, ascertaining, and transmitting steps using the updated complete set as starting parameters of the neural network.
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the updating process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
after transmitting the proposed changes, receiving, by the client node from the server node, an updated complete set of parameters of the neural network, wherein the updated complete set incorporates a change obtained by averaging the transmitted proposed changes with proposed changes from at least one other client node;
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim further recites:
performing, by the client node, a further iteration of the supplying, evaluating, optimizing, selecting, ascertaining, and transmitting steps using the updated complete set as starting parameters of the neural network.
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the updating process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 36,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites the abstract idea described above in claim 18, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
after transmitting the proposed changes, receiving, by the client node from the server node, an updated complete set of parameters of the neural network
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim further recites:
wherein the updated complete set comprises parameters optimized through supervised training using examples from a predefined distillation data set as training inputs and respective outputs of multiple instances of the neural network as target outputs, the multiple instances being parameterized with respective client-specific parameter sets to which the transmitted proposed changes and proposed changes from one or more other client nodes have respectively been applied; and
performing, by the client node, a further iteration of the supplying, evaluating, optimizing, selecting, ascertaining, and transmitting steps using the updated complete set as starting parameters of the neural network.
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training and updating process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
after transmitting the proposed changes, receiving, by the client node from the server node, an updated complete set of parameters of the neural network
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim further recites:
wherein the updated complete set comprises parameters optimized through supervised training using examples from a predefined distillation data set as training inputs and respective outputs of multiple instances of the neural network as target outputs, the multiple instances being parameterized with respective client-specific parameter sets to which the transmitted proposed changes and proposed changes from one or more other client nodes have respectively been applied; and
performing, by the client node, a further iteration of the supplying, evaluating, optimizing, selecting, ascertaining, and transmitting steps using the updated complete set as starting parameters of the neural network.
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training and updating process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 37,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites the abstract idea described above in claim 18, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
after transmitting the proposed changes, receiving, by the client node from the server node, an updated complete set of parameters of the neural network, wherein the updated complete set comprises parameters optimized in accordance with a predefined cost function to improve agreement between outputs of the neural network for examples from a predefined distillation data set and target outputs generated for the examples by respective instances of the neural network, the respective instances being parameterized with respective client-specific parameter sets obtained by applying the transmitted proposed changes and proposed changes from one or more other client nodes to respective parameter sets specific to those client nodes;
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim further recites:
performing, by the client node, a further iteration of the supplying, evaluating, optimizing, selecting, ascertaining, and transmitting steps using the updated complete set as starting parameters of the neural network.
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the updating process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
after transmitting the proposed changes, receiving, by the client node from the server node, an updated complete set of parameters of the neural network, wherein the updated complete set comprises parameters optimized in accordance with a predefined cost function to improve agreement between outputs of the neural network for examples from a predefined distillation data set and target outputs generated for the examples by respective instances of the neural network, the respective instances being parameterized with respective client-specific parameter sets obtained by applying the transmitted proposed changes and proposed changes from one or more other client nodes to respective parameter sets specific to those client nodes;
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim further recites:
performing, by the client node, a further iteration of the supplying, evaluating, optimizing, selecting, ascertaining, and transmitting steps using the updated complete set as starting parameters of the neural network.
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the updating process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 38,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites the abstract idea described above in claim 18, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein transmitting the proposed changes causes an update, based at least in part on the transmitted proposed changes, to parameters of the neural network at the server node, thereby modifying control by the server node of a vehicle using a control signal formed based on an output produced by the neural network by processing measurement data recorded by at least one sensor.
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein transmitting the proposed changes causes an update, based at least in part on the transmitted proposed changes, to parameters of the neural network at the server node, thereby modifying control by the server node of a vehicle using a control signal formed based on an output produced by the neural network by processing measurement data recorded by at least one sensor.
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 39 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
The system, client node, and server node are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As to claim 40,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the server node is further configured to apply the change to the complete set of parameters and to distribute the updated complete set of parameters to the plurality of client nodes.
For example, a person can adjust one or more of the parameters as they see fit.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 41,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the server node is configured to aggregate the respective proposed changes by:
applying the respective proposed changes received from each client node to a respective parameter set specific to that client node;
processing examples from a predefined distillation data set with respective instances of the neural network parameterized with the respective parameter sets to produce respective outputs; and
optimizing the complete set of parameters with a goal of improving, in accordance with a predefined cost function, agreement between outputs produced by the neural network parameterized with the complete set of parameters for the examples and the respective outputs produced by the respective instances;
and wherein the server node is further configured to distribute the optimized complete set of parameters to the plurality of client nodes for a further iteration of the federated training.
For example, a person can adjust one or more of the parameters as they see fit.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 42,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites the abstract idea described above in claim 18, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
supply the trained neural network with measurement data recorded by at least one sensor;
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim further recites:
form a control signal based on an output produced by the trained neural network in response to the measurement data;
these elements are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim further recites:
control, using the control signal, at least one of a vehicle, a robot, a driver assistance system, a quality control system, a system for monitoring areas, or a medical imaging system.
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the controlling process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
The sensor, at least one of a vehicle, a robot, a driver assistance system, a quality control system, a system for monitoring areas, and a medical imaging system are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
supply the trained neural network with measurement data recorded by at least one sensor;
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim further recites:
form a control signal based on an output produced by the trained neural network in response to the measurement data;
are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
The claim further recites:
control, using the control signal, at least one of a vehicle, a robot, a driver assistance system, a quality control system, a system for monitoring areas, or a medical imaging system.
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the controlling process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
The sensor, at least one of a vehicle, a robot, a driver assistance system, a quality control system, a system for monitoring areas, and a medical imaging system are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
GREENEWALD et al (US 2021/0089878) teaches in federated learning problems, data is scattered across different servers and exchanging or pooling it is often impractical or prohibited. A Bayesian nonparametric framework is presented for federated learning with neural networks. Each data server is assumed to provide local neural network weights, which are modeled through our framework. An inference approach is presented that allows us to synthesize a more expressive global network without additional supervision, data pooling and with as few as a single communication round. The efficacy of the present invention on federated learning problems simulated from two popular image classification datasets is shown.
GREENEWALD et al does not disclose or suggest obvious supplying the neural network parameterized with the set of parameters with training examples from a predefined set so that the neural network in each case delivers outputs, wherein the training examples are each labeled with target outputs; evaluating deviations of the outputs from the respective target outputs with a predefined cost function; optimizing the parameters of the neural network are optimized with a goal of ensuring that, during further processing of training examples, the evaluation by the cost function is improved; selecting a set of particularly relevant parameters based on a predefined criterion; for the selected parameters, ascertaining proposed changes as the training contribution based on a result of the optimization; and transmitting the proposed changes to the server node, in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON S COLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5075. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30pm - 5pm EST (Alternate Friday's Off).
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, Omar Fernandez can be reached at 571-272-2589. 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.
/BRANDON S COLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights