DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant Response filed 15 December 2023 for application 18/542,424 filed 15 December 2023.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 2-3, 12-13 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, lines 1-2, the set of operation parameters include should read “the set of operating parameters includes”
Claim 12, line 1, the set of operation parameters include should read “the set of operating parameters includes”
Claims 3, 13 are objected to due to their dependence, either directly or indirectly, on claims 2, 12
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea, and because the claim elements, whether considered individually or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al., 573 US 208 (2014).
Regarding claim 1, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented method.
The limitation of selecting ... one of a plurality of artificial neural networks (ANNs) based on the set of operating parameters, each ANN defining which portions of the processing task are to be performed by the first and second computing devices, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of performing ... a first portion of the processing task to obtain an intermediate processing result ..., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – computer-implemented, processing circuitry, first computing device, second computing device. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – plurality of artificial neural networks. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites receiving, by processing circuitry of a first computing device, a set of operating parameters from a second computing device, the set of operating parameters affecting a distribution of a processing task between the first and second computing devices; transmitting, by the processing circuitry, the intermediate processing result to the second computing device that is configured to perform a second portion of the processing task based on the intermediate processing result to obtain a final processing result, which is simply transmitting data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
computer-implemented, processing circuitry, first computing device, second computing device amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
transmitting data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2016.05(d))
plurality of artificial neural networks amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented method. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 2 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the set of operation parameters include available computing resources at the second computing device and a network condition of a network connection between the first and second computing devices.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented method. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 2 is applicable here since claim 3 carries out the method of claim 2 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the available computing resources at the second computing device include at least one of a battery level or a processing power of the second computing device.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the computing resources and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the computing resources do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented method. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 4 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein each of the plurality of ANNs provides a different balance of latency and computational costs for processing a same task by defining (i) a different respective first number of layers for the first computing device to perform a different respective first portion of the processing task and (ii) a different respective second number of layers for the second computing device to perform a different respective second portion of the processing task.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the models and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the models do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented method. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 5 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein each of the plurality of ANNs further provides a different layer width for a last executed layer of the first number of layers of the respective ANN.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the models and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the models do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented method.
The limitation of compressing the intermediate training result, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites processing training data by a former portion of the respective ANN to generate an intermediate training result; processing the compressed intermediate training result by a latter portion of the respective ANN which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of model generation and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
generic training to perform the abstract idea amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented method.
The limitation of compressing ... the intermediate processing result, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites transmitting, by the processing circuitry, the compressed intermediate processing result to the second computing device, which is simply transmitting data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
transmitting data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2016.05(d))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented method. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 8 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of transmitting, by the processing circuitry, additional information to the second computing device to complete the processing task.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites transmitting, by the processing circuitry, additional information to the second computing device to complete the processing task, which is simply transmitting data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
transmitting data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2016.05(d))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented method. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 8 is applicable here since claim 9 carries out the method of claim 8 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the additional information includes an identifier of the selected ANN.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented method.
The limitation of wherein the processing task includes processing of a digital item, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to an apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) apparatus.
The limitation of select one of a plurality of artificial neural networks (ANNs) based on the set of operating parameters, each ANN defining which portions of the processing task are to be performed by the apparatus and the computing device, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of perform a first portion of the processing task to obtain an intermediate processing result ..., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – apparatus, processing circuitry, computing device. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – plurality of artificial neural networks. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites receive a set of operating parameters from a computing device, the set of operating parameters affecting a distribution of a processing task between the apparatus and the computing device; transmit the intermediate processing result to the computing device that is configured to perform a second portion of the processing task based on the intermediate processing result to obtain a final processing result, which is simply transmitting data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
apparatus, processing circuitry, computing device amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
transmitting data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2016.05(d))
plurality of artificial neural networks amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to an apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) apparatus. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 11 is applicable here since claim 12 carries out the apparatus of claim 11 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the set of operation parameters include available computing resources at the computing device and a network condition of a network connection between the apparatus and the computing device.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to an apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) apparatus. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 12 is applicable here since claim 13 carries out the apparatus of claim 12 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the available computing resources at the computing device include at least one of a battery level or a processing power of the computing device.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the computing resources and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the computing resources do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to an apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) apparatus. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 11 is applicable here since claim 14 carries out the apparatus of claim 11 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein each of the plurality of ANNs provides a different balance of latency and computational costs for processing a same task by defining (i) a different respective first number of layers for the first computing device to perform a different respective first portion of the processing task and (ii) a different respective second number of layers for the computing device to perform a different respective second portion of the processing task.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the models and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the models do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to an apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) apparatus. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 11 is applicable here since claim 15 carries out the apparatus of claim 11 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein each of the plurality of ANNs further provides a different layer width for a last executed layer of the first number of layers of the respective ANN.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the models and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the models do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to an apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) apparatus.
The limitation of compressing the intermediate training result, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites processing training data by a former portion of the respective ANN to generate an intermediate training result; processing the compressed intermediate training result by a latter portion of the respective ANN which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of model generation and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
generic training to perform the abstract idea amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 17 is directed to an apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) apparatus.
The limitation of compress the intermediate processing result, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites transmit the compressed intermediate processing result to the computing device, which is simply transmitting data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
transmitting data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2016.05(d))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 18 is directed to an apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) apparatus. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 11 is applicable here since claim 18 carries out the apparatus of claim 11 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of transmit additional information to the computing device to complete the processing task.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites transmit additional information to the computing device to complete the processing task, which is simply transmitting data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
transmitting data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2016.05(d))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 19 is directed to an apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) apparatus. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 18 is applicable here since claim 19 carries out the apparatus of claim 18 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the additional information includes an identifier of the selected ANN.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 20 is directed to a computer-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-readable medium.
The limitation of selecting one of a plurality of artificial neural networks (ANNs) based on the set of operating parameters, each ANN defining which portions of the processing task are to be performed by the apparatus and the computing device, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of performing a first portion of the processing task to obtain an intermediate processing result ..., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – computer-readable medium, instructions, apparatus, computing device. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – plurality of artificial neural networks. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites receiving a set of operating parameters from a computing device, the set of operating parameters affecting a distribution of a processing task between the apparatus and the computing device; transmitting the intermediate processing result to the computing device that is configured to perform a second portion of the processing task based on the intermediate processing result to obtain a final processing result, which is simply transmitting data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
computer-readable medium, instructions, apparatus, computing device amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
transmitting data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2016.05(d))
plurality of artificial neural networks amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2017/0076195 A1 – Distributed Neural Network for Scalable Real-Time Analytics, hereinafter referred to as “Yang”) in view of Lin et al. (US 2016/0328644 A1 – Adaptive Selection of Artificial Neural Networks, hereinafter referred to as “Lin”).
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches a computer-implemented (Yang, [0054] – teaches a processor to implement the first portion of a neural network) method, comprising:
receiving, by processing circuitry of a first computing device, a set of operating parameters from a second computing device, the set of operating parameters affecting a distribution of a processing task between the first and second computing devices (Yang, [0020] – teaches a distributed neural network where layers are distributed based on computational bandwidth and transmission bandwidth; Yang, [0024] – teaches offloading computations from a cloud computing resource to a distributed device based on operating parameters);
selecting, by the processing circuitry, one of a plurality of artificial neural networks (ANNs) based on the set of operating parameters, each ANN defining which portions of the processing task are to be performed by the first and second computing devices (Yang, [0020]-[0022] – teaches a distributed network with layers distributed based on computational and transmission bandwidth; see also Yang, [0030] – teaches various potential network architectures);
performing, by the processing circuitry, a first portion of the processing task to obtain an intermediate processing result according to the selected ANN (Yang, [0021] – teaches processing data with first portion of the neural network using a distributed device to generate a feature map [intermediate result]); and
transmitting, by the processing circuitry, the intermediate processing result to the second computing device (Yang, [0022] – teaches transmitting the feature maps [intermediate results] to a cloud computing resource) that is configured to perform a second portion of the processing task based on the intermediate processing result to obtain a final processing result (Yang, [0022] – teaches the cloud computing resource processing intermediate result to generate object label [final result]).
While Yang teaches offloading a neural network based on operating parameters, Yang does not explicitly teach that the operating parameters are sent to the distributed device. Further, while Yang teach the splitting a model at various points, it does not explicitly teach selecting a model from a plurality of models.
Lin teaches
receiving, by processing circuitry of a first computing device, a set of operating parameters from a second computing device, the set of operating parameters affecting a distribution of a processing task between the first and second computing devices (Lin, [0026] – teaches adaptively selecting an artificial neural network based on current system resources and performance specifications [operating parameters]; Lin, [0051]-[0052] - teaches factors such as processor load, batter life and communication speed are used to determine model conversion [selection]; see also Lin, [0062] - dynamic model selection based on resource fluctuations [It would be obvious that the resource factors can apply to both client and server]);
selecting, by the processing circuitry (Lin, [0026] – teaches adaptively selecting an artificial neural network based on current system resources and performance specifications [operating parameters];), one of a plurality of artificial neural networks (ANNs) based on the set of operating parameters (Lin, [0066] – teaches a mapper selecting a suitably trained DCN from a database of architectures with varying complexity based on the desired trade-off between complexity and performance; see also Lin, [0057]), each ANN defining which portions of the processing task are to be performed by the first and second computing devices (Lin, [0050] – teaches that different realizations of an ANN may perform the same task with varying degrees of accuracy [different portions]; Lin, [0051]-[0052] - teaches factors such as processor load, batter life and communication speed are used to determine model conversion [selection]; see also Lin, [0062] - dynamic model selection based on resource fluctuations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shi in view of Yang with the teachings of Lin in order to improve power efficiency while maintaining performance as well as reduce memory and or latency in the field of offloading tasks from client to server based on computing resources (Lin, [0052] – “Because different scenarios may benefit from the selection of different realizations of an ANN, it is desirable to use a conversion tool to dynamically convert one realization (e.g., model or configurations) to another. In one example, when an ANN designed for a server is downloaded to a mobile device the ANN may be converted to have a smaller model size and/or use fewer multiply and accumulate operations (MACs). In another example, when the battery level on a device is below a threshold, the ANN may be converted to improve power efficiency while the performance remains above a threshold. In yet another example, when one or more applications on the shared processor consume an increased amount of processing power and/or memory bandwidth, the ANN may be converted to use less processing while not increasing an overall delay.”).
Regarding claim 2, Yang in view of Lin teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Lin further teaches wherein the set of operation parameters include available computing resources at the second computing device and a network condition of a network connection between the first and second computing devices (Lin, [0051]-[0052] - teaches factors such as processor load, batter life and communication speed are used to determine model conversion [selection]; see also Lin, [0062] - dynamic model selection based on resource fluctuations [It would be obvious that the resource factors can apply to both client and server]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yang and Lin in order to consider resource operating parameters to improve power efficiency while maintaining performance as well as reduce memory and or latency (Lin, [0052]).
Regarding claim 3, Yang in view of Lin teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 2 as noted above. Lin further teaches wherein the available computing resources at the second computing device include at least one of a battery level or a processing power of the second computing device (Lin, [0051]-[0052] - teaches factors such as processor load, batter life and communication speed are used to determine model conversion [selection]; see also Lin, [0062] - dynamic model selection based on resource fluctuations [It would be obvious that the resource factors can apply to both client and server]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yang and Lin in order to consider resource operating parameters to improve power efficiency while maintaining performance as well as reduce memory and or latency (Lin, [0052]).
Regarding claim 4, Yang in view of Lin teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above.
Yang further teaches wherein each of the plurality of ANNs provides a different balance of latency and computational costs for processing a same task by defining (i) a different respective first number of layers for the first computing device to perform a different respective first portion of the processing task and (ii) a different respective second number of layers for the second computing device to perform a different respective second portion of the processing task (Yang, [0020]-[0022] – teaches a distributed network with layers distributed based on computational and transmission bandwidth wherein a first portion lies on a first device and a second portion lies on a second device; see also Yang, [0030] – teaches various potential network architectures).
Lin further teaches wherein each of the plurality of ANNs provides a different balance of latency and computational costs for processing a same task by defining (i) a different respective first number of layers for the first computing device to perform a different respective first portion of the processing task and (ii) a different respective second number of layers for the second computing device to perform a different respective second portion of the processing task (Lin, [0026] – teaches various models dependent on resource including computational speed and latency; Lin, [0050] – teaches that different realizations of an ANN may perform the same task with varying degrees of accuracy [different portions]; Lin, [0066] – teaches a mapper selecting a suitably trained DCN from a database of architectures with varying complexity based on the desired trade-off between complexity and performance; Lin, [0085] – teaches selecting model based on resources; see also Lin, [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yang and Lin in order to select models to improve power efficiency while maintaining performance as well as reduce memory and or latency (Lin, [0052]).
Regarding claim 5, Yang in view of Lin teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Yang further teaches wherein each of the plurality of ANNs further provides a different layer width for a last executed layer of the first number of layers of the respective ANN (Yang, [0030] – teaches that the number of feature maps can be any number, including for example 4 or 6 based on the split of the model between camera and cloud computing resource).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yang and Lin for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Yang in view of Lin teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Yang further teaches wherein each of the plurality of ANNs is trained by processing training data by a former portion of the respective ANN to generate an intermediate training result, compressing the intermediate training result, and processing the compressed intermediate training result by a latter portion of the respective ANN (Yang, [0061] – teaches training the models by processing training data through the lower level layers [former] and generating sub-sampled data [compressed] and then training cloud computing resource layers [latter]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yang and Lin for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, Yang in view of Lin teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Yang further teaches wherein the transmitting includes:
compressing, by the processing circuitry, the intermediate processing result (Yang, [0036] – teaches generating sub-sampled feature maps [compressed] by lower level layers [first computing device]); and
transmitting, by the processing circuitry, the compressed intermediate processing result to the second computing device (Yang, [0036] – teaches transmitting the sub-sampled feature maps from the lower level layers [first computing device] to the cloud computing device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yang and Lin for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, Yang in view of Lin teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Yang further teaches wherein the processing task includes processing of a digital item (Yang, [0020] – teaches processing an image or video).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yang and Lin for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, it is the apparatus embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1. Yang further teaches an apparatus, comprising:
processing circuitry configured to (Yang, [0054] – teaches a processor to implement the first portion of a neural network) …
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yang and Lin for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Yang in view of Lin for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Yang in view of Lin for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Yang in view of Lin for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Yang in view of Lin for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Yang in view of Lin for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Yang in view of Lin for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 20, it is the computer-readable medium embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1. Yang further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by an apparatus, cause the apparatus to perform (Yang, [0054] – teaches a processor to implement the first portion of a neural network) …
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yang and Lin for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 8-9, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Lin and further in view of Chun et al. (CloneCloud: Elastic Execution Between Mobile Device and Cloud, hereinafter referred to as “Chun”).
Regarding claim 8, Yang in view of Lin teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. However, Yang in view of Lin does not explicitly teach transmitting, by the processing circuitry, additional information to the second computing device to complete the processing task.
Chun teaches transmitting, by the processing circuitry, additional information to the second computing device to complete the processing task (Chun, section 4 – teaches sending information regarding a selected processing task from a client to a server).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang in view of Lin with the teachings of Chun in order to optimizing execution time and energy use for a target computation and communication environment in the field of distributed processing (Chun, Abstract – “Mobile applications are becoming increasingly ubiquitous and provide ever richer functionality on mobile devices. At the same time, such devices often enjoy strong connectivity with more powerful machines ranging from laptops and desktops to commercial clouds. This paper presents the design and implementation of CloneCloud, a system that automatically transforms mobile applications to benefit from the cloud. The system is a flexible application partitioner and execution runtime that enables unmodified mobile applications running in an application-level virtual machine to seamlessly off-load part of their execution from mobile devices onto device clones operating in a computational cloud. CloneCloud uses a combination of static analysis and dynamic profiling to partition applications automatically at a fine granularity while optimizing execution time and energy use for a target computation and communication environment. At runtime, the application partitioning is effected by migrating a thread from the mobile device at a chosen point to the clone in the cloud, executing there for the remainder of the partition, and re-integrating the migrated thread back to the mobile device. Our evaluation shows that CloneCloud can adapt application partitioning to different environments, and can help some applications achieve as much as a 20x execution speed-up and a 20-fold decrease of energy spent on the mobile device.”).
Regarding claim 9, Yang in view of Lin and further in view of Chun teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 8 as noted above. Chun further teaches wherein the additional information includes an identifier of the selected ANN (Chun, section 4 – teaches sending information regarding a selected processing task from a client to a server which identifies the selected processing task to be completed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yang, Lin and Chun in order to identify model portion to optimizing execution time and energy use for a target computation and communication environment (Chun, Abstract).
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Yang in view of Lin and further in view of Chun for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 18 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Yang in view of Lin and further in view of Chun for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to MARSHALL WERNER whose telephone number is (469) 295-9143. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Thursday 7:30 AM – 4:30 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamran Afshar, can be reached at (571) 272-7796. The fax 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.
/MARSHALL L WERNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2125
Prosecution Insights