DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 39-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 39 recites at least one computer readable storage medium that is not limited to just statutory subject matter as outlined in the Specification; therefore, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Examiner suggests inserting "non-transitory" prior to computer readable storage medium to exclude any non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 26-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process (concept performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, organizing human activity and mathematical concepts and calculations).
Claim 26 recites A computing system for image sequence or video analysis, comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing a neural network, the neural network comprising: a plurality of convolution layers; a network depth relay structure comprising a plurality of network depth calibration layers, wherein each network depth calibration layer is coupled to an output of a respective one of the plurality of convolution layers; and a feature dimension relay structure comprising a plurality of feature dimension calibration slices, wherein the feature dimension relay structure is coupled to an output of another layer of the plurality of convolution layers.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be performed mentally and no additional features in the claim would preclude them from being performed as such.
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 26-50 are directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? YES. Claim(s) 26-50 are directed to a system, and an apparatus performing a method and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium performing a method.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? YES , the claims are directed toward a mental process (i.e., abstract idea).
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts — mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity -- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes -- concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The system of claim 26 comprises a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind (or generic computers or components configured to perform the method) and, therefore, an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 26: the system recites: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing a neural network, the neural network comprising (a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind (or generic computers or components configured to perform the functions): a plurality of convolution layers (a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind (or generic computers or components configured to perform the functions); a network depth relay structure comprising a plurality of network depth calibration layers, wherein each network depth calibration layer is coupled to an output of a respective one of the plurality of convolution layers (a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind (or generic computers or components configured to perform the functions); and a feature dimension relay structure comprising a plurality of feature dimension calibration slices, wherein the feature dimension relay structure is coupled to an output of another layer of the plurality of convolution layers (a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind (or generic computers or components configured to perform the functions).
These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193,197 (1978) (same).
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 26 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 26 does not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. The use of generic computer elements for image sequence or image analysis as claimed in Claim 26 is a routine, well-understood and conventional process that is performed by computers.
Independent Claims 32, 39 and 45 contain the same elements included in claim 26; therefore, the same rationale pertains.
Thus, since Claims 26-50 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and
(c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that Claim(s) 26-50 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claims 27-31, 33-38, 40-44 and 46-50: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26-50 would be allowed provided the rejections under 35 USC 101 are overcome.
The present invention is directed to performance-enhanced deep learning technology utilizing convolutional neural networks for image sequence or video analysis. Each independent claim identifies the uniquely distinct features:
a processor; and
a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing a neural network, the neural network comprising:
a plurality of convolution layers;
a network depth relay structure comprising a plurality of network depth calibration layers, wherein each network depth calibration layer is coupled to an output of a respective one of the plurality of convolution layers; and
a feature dimension relay structure comprising a plurality of feature dimension calibration slices, wherein the feature dimension relay structure is coupled to an output of another layer of the plurality of convolution layers.
The closest prior art, US 2021/0158010 A1 (“Chang et al.”), fail to anticipate or render obvious at least the above limitations.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLOTTE M BAKER whose telephone number is (571)272-7459. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, JENNIFER MEHMOOD can be reached at (571)272-2976. 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.
/CHARLOTTE M BAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2664
15 January 2026