DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed 20 March 2024, claiming benefit back to 30 March 2023.
Claims 1 – 16 are pending and have been examined.
This action is Non-Final.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) have been considered by the examiner.
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 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention, when the claims are taken as a whole, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A – 1: The claims recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 recites the limitations of: An inference method employing a prompt-based meta-learning network, the inference method comprising:
[a] selecting a task;
[b] inputting the selected task to a prompt-embedding network (PEN) to generate a prompt key for the selected task;
[c] calculating similarities between the prompt key for the selected task and prompt keys included in a prompt key pool (PKP) using a similarity function;
[d] acquiring a prompt value for the selected task using a memory network (MN) on the basis of the similarities and the prompt keys included in the PKP; and
[e] generating an inference result for the selected task using a model-agnostic meta-learning (MAML)-based pre-trained model (MPM) on the basis of the selected task and the prompt value for the selected task.
These limitations (bolded and italicized), as drafted, is / are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of mathematical calculations, which encompasses mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). For example, the mathematical equations for step [c] are described in Applicant’s disclosure in at least paragraphs [0059]-[0060]; the mathematical equations for step [d] are described in Applicant’s disclosure in at least paragraphs [0069]-[0076]; the mathematical equations for the result claimed in step [e] are described in Applicant’s disclosure in at least paragraphs [0079]-[0080].
Step 2A – 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 recites the following additional limitations / elements - [a] selecting a task, however, this is recited at a high level of generality, and does not put any limits as to how the task is selected, and as such is merely insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g); [b] inputting the selected task to a prompt-embedding network (PEN)1,however, this provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h); [d] using a memory network (MN), however, this provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f)2; and [e] using a model-agnostic meta-learning (MAML)-based pre-trained model (MPM), however, again this provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Independent claim 11 further recites the additional elements of a memory configured to store computer-readable instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions, however, the memory and processor are used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claims do not provide for or recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using 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.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO). The claim is directed to the abstract idea. (Step 2A: YES).
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims, and it has been held that “[i]n defining the excluded categories, the Court has ruled that the exclusion applies if a claim involves a natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea, even if the particular natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea at issue is narrow.” (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350. )
Turning to the dependent claims, none of the claimed features of the dependent claims further limit the claimed invention in such a way to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter (e.g. change the scope of the claimed invention as to no longer be directed towards an abstract idea, or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se), nor do they add limitations that, when taken as a combination, result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. In respect to exemplary dependent claims 2 – 10:
Claim 2 merely describes the stored data;
Claim 3 merely further describes the memory network;
Claim 4 merely further describes the MPM;
Claim 5 merely further describes the PEN;
Claim 6 merely further describes the selected task;
Claims 7 and 8 merely further describe the result of the judicial exception;
Claim 9 merely describes the mathematical algorithm of determining similarity.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, or the recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions previously known to the industry3 [e.g. performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data; electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks; receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data] .
Applicant’s specification, at, e.g., paragraphs [0085], [0086], [0088], [00126]-[00131], FIG. 5, provides evidence of generic computer hardware performing generic, well-known, computer functions.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements, both individually and in combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the above identified abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more (e.g. improvements to another technology or technical fields, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment) than the abstract idea itself. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation4.
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. No. 13–298.
Subject Matter Not Rejected Over Prior Art
Claims 1 – 20 are not currently rejected over any prior art of record.
The closest prior art of record includes references 5, 6, and 7 of Applicant’s IDS, submitted on 20 March 2024; reference 8 of Applicant’s IDS, submitted on 27 April 2026; Iwata (U.S. 2023/0222319), directed to a learning method, learning apparatus and program; and Zhang et al. (U.S. 2022/0147818), directed to an auxiliary model for predicting new model parameters.
However, with respect to exemplary independent claim 1, the closest prior art of record, either alone or taken in combination with any other references of record, do not anticipate or render obvious the claimed functionality.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Jia; Yi US 20230139567 A1 Multi-Modal Methods And Systems
Li; Shuo et al. US 20230252295 A1 Method Of Generating Multimodal Set Of Samples For Intelligent Inspection, And Training Method
Bae; Ji Hoon et al. US 20180293723 A1 Apparatus And Method For Detecting Anomaly In Plant Pipe Using Multiple Meta-Learning
Yang; Jeongmin et al. US 20240330649 A1 Inference Method Employing Prompt-Based Meta-Learning Network And Computer System
Kim; Hyun-Woo et al. US 20240232648 A1 Multimodal Unsupervised Meta-Learning Method And Apparatus
Yoon; Hyunjin et al. US 20180096222 A1 Method And Apparatus For Authoring Machine Learning-Based Immersive (4D) Media
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN S MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5288. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10am-6pm. Examiner’s fax phone number is (571) 270-6288.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALAN S MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
1 (Noting that the actual structure of the PEN is not described in Applicant’s disclosure, merely that it is a prompt-embedding network that may be configured as a simple MLP (multi-layer perceptron (MLP) scheme) that is trained through end-to-end learning (see, e.g., Applicant’s disclosure at [0023], [0085], [0088]).
2 MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception.
3 “It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294)”. Id, pages 10-11. “Likewise, the server fails to add an inventive concept because it is simply a generic computer that “administer[ s]” digital images using a known “arbitrary data bank system.” Id. at col. 5 ll. 45–46. But “[f]or the role of a computer in a computer-implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of ‘well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.’” Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347–48 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2359). “These steps fall squarely within our precedent finding generic computer components insufficient to add an inventive concept to an otherwise abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (“Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and a ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1345, 1348 (“storing information” into memory, and using a computer to “translate the shapes on a physical page into typeface characters,” insufficient confer patent eligibility); Mortg. Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324–25 (generic computer components such as an “interface,” “network,” and “database,” fail to satisfy the inventive concept requirement); Intellectual Ventures I, 792 F.3d at 1368 (a “database” and “a communication medium” “are all generic computer elements”); BuySAFE v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”)”. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive L.L.C., (No. 15-1372, (Fed. Cir. May 17, 2016)), at *12-13.
See additionally MPEP 2106.05(d).
4 “Nor, in addressing the second step of Alice, does claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer provide a sufficient inventive concept. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”); CLS Bank, Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“[S]imply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” (citations omitted))”. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Prosecution Insights