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 .
The filing date of the present invention is 04/30/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/22/2024 and 02/18/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being 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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 21
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“….the method comprising: … encoding the plurality of inference requests, the plurality of inference requests comprising the particular inference request, to form a plurality of coded inference requests, wherein the encoding is specific to the first coded inference stage; …decoding the plurality of inference results and the plurality of estimated inference results to form a plurality of estimated inference results, wherein the decoding is specific to the last coded inference stage; selecting either the plurality of inference results or the plurality of estimated inference results, thereby generating a plurality of selected inference results;”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of “A method of managing a plurality of inference requests indicated associated with a coded inference network representative of a deep neural network (DNN), the coded inference network comprising a first coded inference stage and a last coded inference stage, the first coded inference stage implementing a first non-linear function representative of a first sub-DNN of the DNN, the last coded inference stage implementing a last non-linear function representative of a last sub-DNN of the DNN,”, as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. In addition, the claim limitation “receiving, from a particular source, a particular inference request;… receiving, from the last coded inference stage, a plurality of inference results and a plurality of redundant inference results transmitting, to the first coded inference stage, the inference requests and the coded inference requests; … and transmitting, to the particular source, a particular inference result corresponding to the particular inference request, the particular inference result selected from among the plurality of selected inference results…” as explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The only remaining limitation of the claim “receiving, from a particular source, a particular inference request;… receiving, from the last coded inference stage, a plurality of inference results and a plurality of redundant inference results transmitting, to the first coded inference stage, the inference requests and the coded inference requests; … and transmitting, to the particular source, a particular inference result corresponding to the particular inference request, the particular inference result selected from among the plurality of selected inference results…” constitute storing and retrieving information in memory, which the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 22
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites “wherein the transmitting the plurality of inference requests and the plurality of encoded inference requests to the first coded inference stage uses a wireless communication link..” as explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The only remaining limitation of the claim “wherein the transmitting the plurality of inference requests and the plurality of encoded inference requests to the first coded inference stage uses a wireless communication link.” constitute storing and retrieving information in memory, which the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 23
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites “wherein the transmitting the plurality of inference requests and the plurality of encoded inference requests to the first coded inference stage uses a wired communication link.” as explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The only remaining limitation of the claim “wherein the transmitting the plurality of inference requests and the plurality of encoded inference requests to the first coded inference stage uses a wired communication link” constitute storing and retrieving information in memory, which the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 24
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of “wherein the receiving the plurality of inference results and the plurality of estimated inference results from the last coded inference stage uses a wireless communication link.”, as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: 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 integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 25
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of “wherein the receiving the plurality of inference results and the plurality of estimated inference results from the last coded inference stage uses a wired communication link.”, as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: 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 integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 26
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of “wherein at least one of the encoding the inference request or the decoding the plurality of estimated inference results comprises employing a linear code.””, as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 27
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“further comprising implementing at least one of the encoding or the decoding using beamforming”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 28
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim limitation “receiving the plurality of inference requests from a plurality of sources; and transmitting the plurality of selected inference results by distributing, among the plurality of sources, respective corresponding inference results among the plurality of selected inference results” as explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The only remaining limitation of the claim “:receiving the plurality of inference requests from a plurality of sources; and transmitting the plurality of selected inference results by distributing, among the plurality of sources, respective corresponding inference results among the plurality of selected inference results;” constitute storing and retrieving information in memory, which the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 29
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements “receiving the plurality of inference requests from a plurality of sources; and transmitting the plurality of selected inference results by distributing, among the plurality of sources, respective corresponding inference results among the plurality of selected inference results” as explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The only remaining limitation of the claim “:receiving the plurality of inference requests from a plurality of sources; and transmitting the plurality of selected inference results by distributing, among the plurality of sources, respective corresponding inference results among the plurality of selected inference results;” constitute storing and retrieving information in memory, which the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 30-39
Claim 40 recites analogous limitations to claims 21-39 and therefore is rejected on the same ground as claims 21-39.
Regarding claim 40
Claim 40 recites analogous limitations to claim 21 and therefore is rejected on the same ground as claim 21.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VAN C MANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7598. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00pm.
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, David Yi can be reached at 5712707519. 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.
/VAN C MANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2126
Prosecution Insights