DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This Office Action is in response to the application 18/733116 filed on 4 June 2024.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claims 1, 8, and 15, these claims recite identify at least one connection between the input parameter and a plurality of data nodes. The claims do not specify nor place any limits upon the data nodes, other than specifying them to be “a plurality.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), these claims encompass a simple case of identifying one single connection between the input parameter and two data nodes. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, a human could mentally perform the claimed identifying with the aid of pencil and paper. The claimed identifying amounts to no more than a series of judgements or evaluations, i.e. evaluating or judging each of the two nodes to determine whether or not there is a connection between them and the input parameter. This can be mentally performed with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with a pencil and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
These claims also recite “calculate a relevance score between each matched data node and the input parameter, wherein the relevance score comprises a representation of a likelihood that the matched data node comprises a response to the input parameter.” The claimed calculating of a relevance score amounts to no more than mathematical calculation(s). Hence, this limitation is an abstract idea under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping. Alternatively, this limitation may be deemed an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping, because a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally perform these calculation(s) for the simple case encompassed by the BRI of the claims. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Other than the abstract idea, the claims recite the following:
a) “receive, from the external computing system via a network, an input
parameter” (claim 1, and similar limitations of claims 8 and 15);
b) “return, based on relevance scores, data associated with a first matched data
node” (claim 1, and similar limitations of claims 8 and 15);
c) a first hidden layer of the a recurrent neural network (RNN) performs the “identifying” (claim 1, and similar limitations of claims 8 and 15);
d) “A system comprising: an external computing system comprising a first processor; a recurrent neural network (RNN) analog cache platform, comprising: a processor; and memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor,” (claim 1);
e) “Non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions” for execution by a processor (claim 15).
Limitation (a) amounts to no more than mere data gathering, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Limitation (b) amounts to no more than merely outputting a result, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP 2106.05(g). Limitation (c) is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer, which cannot be deemed a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Limitations (d) and (e) are recited at a high level of generality, i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computing functions. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Limitation (a) amounts to no more than mere data gathering, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the courts have deemed receiving data to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, as in the following cases: Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Limitation (b) amounts to no more than merely outputting a result, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, Applicant’s specification provides few details about the claimed returning data or its functions (see para. 0042 of Applicant’s published specification). This indicates that this feature is well known in the art. Cf Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (explaining that "a patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art"). As a result, the written description adequately supports that additional element (b) is conventional and performs well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A)1. Limitation (c) is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer, which cannot be deemed significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, additional elements (d) and (e) amount to no more than mere field of use limitations and instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using conventional computer components and functions cannot provide an inventive concept. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity; well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter; and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. These claims are not patent eligible.
As to dependent claims 2-3, 9-10, and 16-17, these claims merely provide certain details of the claimed data nodes and/or the at least one connection. However, given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, nothing in these claims goes beyond what a human could mentally perform with the aid of pencil and paper. Hence, these claims remain directed to an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
As to dependent claims 4-5, 11-12, and 18-19, these claims recite features for managing data dependencies and storing data, respectively. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer, which cannot be deemed a practical application nor significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These claims are not patent eligible.
As to dependent claims 6-7, 13-14, and 20, these claims recite features for readjusting neural connections. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer, which cannot be deemed a practical application nor significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These claims are not patent eligible.
Additional Art Considered
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicants’ disclosure.
The following patents and papers are cited to further show the state of the art at the time of Applicants’ invention with respect to recurrent neural network-based cache systems.
a. Ebrahimi, Shahriar, et al. "RC-RNN: Reconfigurable cache architecture for storage systems using recurrent neural networks." IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing 10.3 (2021): 1492-1506.
Teaches a utilizing recurrent neural network (RNN) to identify performance critical data pages for input-output (I/O) caching (see abstract and Section 4 “Proposed Architecture” and Fig. 6).
b. Dasgupta et al.; “NEURAL NETWORK REINFORCEMENT LEARNING”; U.S. PGPub. No. 20180197083 A1.
Teaches a recurrent neural network whose parameters are updated based on a probability function that improves efficiency (see para. 0019, 0033, and 0059).
c. Huang et al.; “Recurrent Neural Network Based Anomaly Detection”; U.S. PGPub. No. 20200293653 A1.
Teaches a recurrent neural network whose operational parameters are adjusted based on a probability function (see para. 0025, 0036, 0039, and 0069-0073).
d. Kwak et al.; “METHOD AND SYSTEM OF EVALUATING ATTRIBUTION OF PATENT CONTENT USING CLASSIFICATION INFORMATION”; U.S. PGPub. No. 20220114685 A1.
Teaches a recurrent neural network in which inputs are processed by hidden layers 1630 and connection weights are assigned to nodes based on their importance and are regularly updated (see para. 0169-0172 and Fig. 7) .
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UMAR MIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10 am to 6:30 pm.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on (571) 272-4078. 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.
/Umar Mian/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
1 MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A) explains that a specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional ( or an equivalent term) or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
Prosecution Insights