DETAILED ACTION
This action is made FINAL in response to the amendments filed on 8/06/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step One
The claims are directed to a method (claims 1 - 11), a computer system with structural components (claims 12 - 19), and a computer-readable storage media executed by at least one processor (claim 20). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
As to claims 1,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
determining an orthogonal matrix using a neural network applied to a calibration dataset
For example, a human can determine whether a matrix is orthogonal by manually calculating whether its rows or columns are mutually perpendicular unit vectors.
multiplying a first weight matrix of the first processing block by the orthogonal matrix, resulting in: a modified first weight matrix comprising multiple components ordered by relative significance;
For example, a human can manually multiple matrices by multiplying corresponding row and column elements and summing the products and ranking them.
removing at least one component of relatively low significance from the modified second weight matrix, resulting in a truncated second weight matrix, a reduced channel width of the neural network, and a reduced computational complexity of matrix multiplications performed during inference.
For example, a human can manually remove undesirable data to create a modified matrix.
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:
generating in computer-storage, based on the neural network, a compressed neural network comprising a compressed second processing block, the compressed second processing block configured to apply the truncated second weight matrix to an input received at the compressed second processing block.
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 “the neural network comprising: a first processing block and a normalizer block having an input connected to an output of the first processing block” which 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 that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
generating in computer-storage, based on the neural network, a compressed neural network comprising a compressed second processing block, the compressed second processing block configured to apply the truncated second weight matrix to an input received at the compressed second processing block.
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 “the neural network comprising: a first processing block and a normalizer block having an input connected to an output of the first processing block” which 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 claims 2,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
multiplying a second weight matrix of the second processing block by a transpose of the orthogonal matrix, resulting in: a modified second weight matrix comprising multiple components ordered by relative significance;
For example, a human can manually multiple matrices by multiplying corresponding row and column elements and summing the products and ranking them.
removing at least one component of relatively low significance from the modified first weight matrix, resulting in a truncated first weight matrix;
For example, a human can manually remove undesirable data to create a modified matrix.
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:
generating in computer-storage, based on the neural network, a compressed neural network comprising a compressed first processing block, the compressed first processing block configured to apply the truncated first weight matrix to an input received at the compressed first processing block.
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 “wherein the neural network comprises
a second processing block having an input connected to an output of the normalizer block” which 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 that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
generating in computer-storage, based on the neural network, a compressed neural network comprising a compressed first processing block, the compressed first processing block configured to apply the truncated first weight matrix to an input received at the compressed first processing block.
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 “wherein the neural network comprises
a second processing block having an input connected to an output of the normalizer block” which 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 claims 3,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
determining the second weight matrix of the second block by performing a scaling operation on a third weight matrix.
For example, a human can scale a matrix by multiplying each of its elements by a constant scale factor which is a simple linear transformation that changes the size of the matrix.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this 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 claims 4,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the abstract idea described above in claim 2, 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:
generating an input to the first processing block using a third processing block of the neural network;
determining based on the input a calibration result matrix, wherein the orthogonal matrix is computed from eigenvectors of the calibration result matrix multiplied by a transpose of the calibration result matrix.
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 “a third processing block of the neural network preceding the first processing block and a second normalizer block of the neural network connected between the third processing block and the first processing block” which 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 that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
generating an input to the first processing block using a third processing block of the neural network;
determining based on the input a calibration result matrix, wherein the orthogonal matrix is computed from eigenvectors of the calibration result matrix multiplied by a transpose of the calibration result matrix.
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 “a third processing block of the neural network preceding the first processing block and a second normalizer block of the neural network connected between the third processing block and the first processing block” which 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 claims 5,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
determining the first weight matrix of the first block by performing a subtraction operation based on a fourth weight matrix and the mean value at the output of the normalizer when the neural network comprises the third weight matrix.
For example, a human can perform a subtraction operation on a matrix.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this 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 claims 6,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the abstract idea described above in claim 1, 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:
providing an input into the compressed first processing block
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 that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
providing an input into the compressed first processing block
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 claims 7,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the abstract idea described above in claim 1, 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 normalizer block performs a StandardNorm function to normalize the neural network resulting in a StandardNorm-normalized neural network, and the orthogonal matrix is determined for the StandardNorm-normalized neural network.
are recited at a high-level of generality 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 that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein the normalizer block performs a StandardNorm function to normalize the neural network resulting in a StandardNorm-normalized neural network, and the orthogonal matrix is determined for the StandardNorm-normalized neural network.
are recited at a high-level of generality 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 claims 8,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the abstract idea described above in claim 2, 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:
applying the compressed neural network to an input comprising at least one of: image data, video data, audio data, text data, cybersecurity data, sensor data, medical data to generate an output
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 a compressed neural network which 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 that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
applying the compressed neural network to an input comprising at least one of: image data, video data, audio data, text data, cybersecurity data, sensor data, medical data to generate an output
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 a compressed neural network which 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 claims 9,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the abstract idea described above in claim 8, 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 input is measured by a 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 a sensor which is 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 that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein the input is measured by a 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 a sensor which is 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 claims 10,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the abstract idea described above in claim 8, 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 output causes a physical device to perform an action based on an output
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 physical device 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 that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein the output causes a physical device to perform an action based on an output
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 physical device 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 claims 11,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the abstract idea described above in claim 1, 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:
generating an output using the compressed neural network applied to an input, the output comprising at least one of: image data, video data, audio data, text data, cybersecurity data, sensor data, medical 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 a compressed neural network which 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 that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
generating an output using the compressed neural network applied to an input, the output comprising at least one of: image data, video data, audio data, text data, cybersecurity data, sensor data, medical 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 a compressed neural network which 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.
Claim 12 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
The at least one memory and at least one processor amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 13 has similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 14 has similar limitations as claim 3. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 15 has similar limitations as claim 5. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 16 has similar limitations as claim 6. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 17 has similar limitations as claim 7. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 18 has similar limitations as claim 8. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 19 has similar limitations as claim 10. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 20 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
The computer-readable storage media storing computer-readable instructions and at least one processor amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
The newly added limitations overcome the claimed objections and the claim objections have been overcome.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The 101 Rejection still has not been overcome. The claims are abstract and the steps in the claims can be completed with a mental process and/or generic computer components. Additionally, the steps in the claims do not describe an improvement of technology in any way.
The applicant argues:
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The abstract idea alleged here is mathematical concepts. To support this assertion the Examiner referred to the specification's teaching of scaling a matrix, computing eigenvectors, multiplying matrices, computing orthogonal matrices, and truncating matrix components. The Examiner also asserted that these operations could be performed in the human mind.
However, the Examiner overgeneralizes the claimed operations and does not address what those operations do within the neural-network architecture. The claims are not directed merely to "multiply matrix A by matrix B" or "compute eigenvectors." Rather, the claims recite a specific sequence that (i) derives an orthogonal matrix from a calibration dataset, (ii) transforms weight matrices of processing blocks, (iii) orders components by significance, (iv) removes low- significance components, and (v) generates a compressed neural network. These are operations that modify the architecture of a machine-learning model itself.
The examiner disagrees. The claimed steps remain mental or mathematical operations applied to numerical data, even when used to modify a neural network-architecture. Removing low0significance components or reducing complexity merely reflects the desired result of the mathematical operations and does not itself improve computer functionality. Applying mathematical concepts to generate a compressed neural network does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The applicant argues:
The specification expressly states that "each matrix multiplication is reduced by a factor of C/C; this increases efficiency, reduces processing, and reduces memory required to store the neural network." This is a technological improvement which at the very least amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims can be eligible when they improve operation of a machine-learning model itself rather than merely using AI as a calculator. The claims of this application show an improvement in internal neural-network architecture and compression and are not just applying generic AI to produce a result. In addition, independent claims 1, 12, and 20 have each been amended to incorporate specific technological effects from the specification to further highlight the technical improvements realized by the limitations of the claim. In particular, claims 1, 12, and 20 have each been amended to recite "removing at least one component of relatively low significance from the modified first weight matrix, resulting in a truncated first weight matrix, a reduced channel width of the neural network, and a reduced computational complexity of matrix multiplications performed during inference."
This application presents a specific neural-network compression framework that modifies processing blocks and normalizer-connected weight matrices to create a reduced-size network while preserving performance. As noted above, the specification explicitly states that "each matrix multiplication is reduced by a factor of C'/C." This is an objective computational improvement. The claimed technique reduces the dimensionality of internal weight matrices and thereby decreases the computational burden of neural-network inference.
The specification further states that "this also reduces the amount of memory required to store the neural network." This is another recognized computer-technology improvement. The specification states that "by removing components that are relatively low importance, reduction in performance of the neural network is minimized." This is not merely data manipulation. It is a technical solution to the technical problem of model compression.
The examiner disagrees as the arguments presented rely on limitations that are neither explicitly recited in the claims nor reasonably inferred from them. At no point in the pending claims does the applicant assert, describe, or even suggest the limitation of “each matrix multiplication is reduced by a factor of C/C; this increases efficiency, reduces processing, and reduces memory required to store the neural network.” Rather, the applicant appears to have introduced this language as part of the argument, but such a limitation cannot be read into the claims when it is not supported by the actual claim language. Without clear support in the claim language the examiner cannot give weight to arguments premised on these alleged limitations.
The so-called benefits of reduced processing and memory requirements are efficiency gains resulting from fewer mathematical calculations are not a technological improvement. Likewise, reducing channel width by removing low-significance matrix components does not change the underlying operation of the computer or neural network, it just reduces the amount of data being processed. Thus, the claimed benefits do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018))
It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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