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 .
This office action is in response to the claimed amendment filed on April 20, 2026, in which claims 9, 12 and 19 were canceled and claims 1-8, 10-11, 13-18 and 20-23 are presented for further examination.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 20, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8, 10-11, 13-18 and 20-23 have been considered but are moot in view of a new ground of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Remark
Applicant asserted the independent claims provide improvements over systems performing dynamic updates to machine learning models cards when updates occur to models. However, the claimed invention does not reflect the tracking and validation of machine learning model modification. The claimed invention does not implicitly or explicitly detail how one having ordinary skill in the art would perform a dynamic update to machine learning models cards based on model changes. Instead the claimed invention recites a generic information to generate an updated card that includes at least a first information and second information indicating at least one or more hardware resources for which a second version of the model was optimized. How the second version was optimized is reminded silence. The first and second information and the version is also remined silence. Based on the absence of such information that the applicant relied to assert the claimed invention provide improvements over systems performing dynamic updates to machine learning models cards when updates occur to models is just an allegation which is not supported by fact. The 35 USC 101 rejection set for the in the last office action is hereby sustained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-11, 13-18 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The independent claims 1, 8 and 18 recite “determining, using one or more decoders to decode the unique identifier that the one or more modifications occurred to a first version of the model to generate a second version of the model that is optimized to execute using one or more hardware resources”. It is unclear of which modification data of a model that was modified to produce a modified data model and how the system would optimize the modified data model using one or more hardware resources and what seems to be a first version or second version of a model.
Claims 1, 8 and 18 recite “obtaining a model card that includes first information associated with first version of the model”. It is unclear as what the first information of first version the applicant is referred to.
Claims 1, 8 and 18 recite “generating, based at least on updating the model card, an updated model card that includes at least the first and second information indicating at least the one or more hardware resources for which the second version of the model was optimized”. It is unclear what the first and second information are to indicate at least the one or more hardware resources for which the second version of the model was optimized.
Claims 1, 8 and 18 recite “receiving, from a computing device, a request associated with the model along with third information indicating one or more hardware capabilities associated with the computing device”. It is unclear as to what information associated with the model to indicate one or more hardware capabilities associated with the computing device. It is unclear as to what third information the applicant is referred to and what seems to be the hardware capabilities that associated with the computing device”.
Furthermore, claims 1, 8 and 18 recite “determining, based at least on the one or more hardware resources indicated by the updated model card and the one or more hardware capabilities associated with the computing device, that the computing device is capable of executing the second version of the model”. It is unclear how one having skill in the art would determine that a computing device is capable of executing the second version of the model based at least on the one or more hardware resources indicated by the updated model card and the one or more hardware capabilities associated with the computing device; and what would be the one or more hardware capabilities that are associated with the computing device.
Claims 2-7, 10-11, 13-17 and 20-23 are rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their respective base claims by dependency.
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 1-8, 10-11, 13-18 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Step 1, Statutory Category:
Claims 1-7 and 21-22 are directed to a method
Claims 8, 10-11, 13-18 are directed to a system.
Claims 18, 20 and 22 are directed to one or more processors.
Therefore, claims 1-8, 10-11, 13-18 and 20-23 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A, Prong One (Judicial exception recited)
The limitation “determining, one or more decoders to decode the unique identifier using one or more decoders, that the unique identifier represents the one or more modifications occurred to a first version of the model to generate a second version of the model that is optimized to execute using one or more hardware resources” in claims 1, 8 and 18, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. One can mentally determine that the unique identifier represents the one or more modifications occurred to a first version of the model to generate a second version of the model that is optimized to execute using one or more hardware resources.
The limitation “generating, based at least on updating the model card, an updated model card that includes at least the first and second information indicating at least the one or more hardware resources for which the second version of the model was optimized” in claims 1, 8 and 18, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. One can mentally generate that the unique identifier represents the one or more modifications occurred to a first version of the model to generate an updated model card that includes at least the first and second information indicating at least the one or more hardware resources for which the second version of the model was optimized.
The limitation “determining, based at least on the one or more hardware resources indicated by the updated model card and the one or more hardware capabilities associated with the computing device, that the computing device is capable of executing the second version of the mode” in claims 1, 8 and 18, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. One can mentally determine that the computing device is capable of executing the second version of the mode.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
That the method is "implemented by a computing system” is a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
The limitation “obtaining a unique identifier associated with a model, the unique identifier being generated by applying a hashing algorithm to encoded modification data that represents one or more modifications that occurred to the model” amount to data-gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation “obtaining a model card that includes first information associated with the first version of the model” amount to data-gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation “receiving, from a computing device, a request associated with the model along with third information indicating one or more hardware capabilities associated with the computing device” amount to data-gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation “sending, to the computing device and based at least on the computing device being capable of executing the second version of the model, data for executing the second version of the model” recites insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere outputting of the result. The mere presentation or output of a mental process generated recommendation does meaningfully limit the abstract idea nor provide integration into a practical application. Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
The limitation “one or more processors and processing circuitry” are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to on more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Note, the mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
With respect to the “obtaining …. and receiving … ” identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, 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);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
With respect to the “one or more processors and processing circuitry” amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrate by: Relevant court decision: the followings are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, see e.g., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): Computer readable storage media comprising instructions to implement a method, e.g., see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim appears to be ineligible.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. The remaining independent claims 8 and 18 fall short the 35 USC 101 requirement under the same rationale.
The dependent claims 2-7, 10, 11, 13-17 and 20-23 when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the unique identifier is further encoded to represent third information indicating a configuration associated with the second version of the model”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 3 recites “sending, to the computing device, the unique identifier for verifying an integrity of the second version of the model by the computing device”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for sending the unique identifier for verifying an integrity of the second version of the model by the computing device, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 4 recites “executing one or more performance tests associated with the second version of the model; and identifying, based at least on the one or more performance tests, performance information related to second version of the model, wherein second information further indicates at least a portion of the performance information”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for executing one or more performance tests associated with the second version of the model, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the first information related to the one or more modifications indicates at least one of: a type of modification that occurred to the first version of the model; a time that the one or more modifications occurred; one or more performance characteristics associated with executing the second version of the model using the one or more hardware resources; one or more performance characteristics associated with the second version of the model; or the unique identifier associated with the second version of the model”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 6 recites “obtaining fourth information related to one or more second modifications that occurred to the second version of the model to generate a third version of the model; and updating the updated model card to include at least a portion of the fourth information.” This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for obtaining third information related to one or more second modifications that occurred to the second version of the model to generate a third version of the model, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 7 recites “storing the updated model card in associated with the second version of the model; or providing at least one of the second version of the model or the updated model card to one or more systems”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for storing the updated model card in associated with the second version of the model, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 10 recites “obtain a unique identifier associated with the second version of the model wherein to determine that the one or more modifications occurred to the first version of the model to generate the second version of the model is based at least on the unique identifier”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for obtaining a unique identifier associated with the second version of the model, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 11 recites “obtain a first unique identifier associated with the first version of the model and a second unique identifier associated with the second version of the model, processing the unique identifier to determine the information related to the one or more modifications wherein to determine that the one or more modifications occurred to the first version of the model to generate the second version of the model is based at least on the first unique identifier and the second unique identifier”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for obtaining a first unique identifier associated with the first version of the model and a second unique identifier associated with the second version of the model, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 13 recites “obtain second data associated with performing the one or more modifications to generate the second version of the model determining, based at least on the data, the information related to the one or more modifications wherein to determine that the one or more modifications occurred to the first version of the model to generate the second version of the model is based at least on the second data associated with performing the one or more modifications”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for obtaining data associated with performing the one or more modifications to generate the second version of the model, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 14 recites “obtain information related to the one or more modifications, the information including at least one of: first information indicating a type of modification that occurred to the first version of the model; second information indicating a time that the one or more modifications occurred; third information indicating one or more hardware components for which the second version of the model was optimized; fourth information indicating one or more performance characteristics associated with executing the second version of the model using the one or more hardware components; fifth information indicating one or more performance characteristics associated with the second version of the model; or a unique identifier associated with the second version of the model”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for obtaining information related to the one or more modifications, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the one or more processors are further to: determine information related to one or more second modifications that occurred to the first version of the model to generate a third version of the model; and update the updated model card to include at least a portion of the information”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the first version of the model is optimized for a first type of hardware; the performance information indicates one or more first performance characteristics associated with executing the first version of the model on the first type of hardware; the second version of the model is optimized for a second type of hardware; and the at least the portion of the performance information indicates one or more second performance characteristics associated with executing the second version of the model on the second type of hardware”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for optimizing the second version of the model using a first type of hardware, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 17 recites “a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine ;a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system for performing one or more simulation operations; a system for performing one or more digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system that provides one or more cloud gaming applications; a system for performing one or more deep learning operations; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system for performing one or more generative AI operations; a system for performing one or more operations using one or more small language models (SLMs);a system for performing operations using one or more large language models (LLMs);a system for performing operations using one or more vision language models (VLMs);a system for performing operations using one or more multi-modal language models; a system for performing one or more conversational AI operations; a system for generating synthetic data; a system for presenting at least one of virtual reality content, augmented reality content, or mixed reality content; systems implementing one or more multi-modal language models; systems using or deploying one or more inference microservices; systems that incorporate deploy one or more machine learning models in a service or microservice along with an OS-level virtualization package (e.g., a container);a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs);a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for performing one or more digital twin operations, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 20 recites “wherein the one or more processors are comprised in at least one of: a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system for performing one or more simulation operations; a system for performing one or more digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system that provides one or more cloud gaming applications; a system for performing one or more deep learning operations; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system for performing one or more generative AI operations; a system for performing one or more operations using one or more small language models (SLMs);a system for performing operations using one or more large language models (LLMs);a system for performing operations using one or more vision language models (VLMs);a system for performing operations using one or more multi-modal language models; a system for performing one or more conversational AI operations; a system for generating synthetic data; a system for presenting at least one of virtual reality content, augmented reality content, or mixed reality content; systems implementing one or more multi-modal language models; systems using or deploying one or more inference microservices; systems that incorporate deploy one or more machine learning models in a service or microservice along with an OS-level virtualization package (e.g., a container);a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs);a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for performing one or more digital twin operations, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 21 recites “wherein the unique identifier is associated with the second version of the model, and the method further comprises: obtaining a second unique identifier is associated with the first version of the model; and determining that the first version of the model was updated to the second version of the model based at least on the unique identifier and the second unique identifier”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for obtaining a second unique identifier is associated with the first version of the model, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 22 recites “wherein the unique identifier is different than the second unique identifier based at least on a first configuration associated with the first version of the model being different than a second configuration associated with the second version of the model”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 23 recites “wherein the user interface inhibits selection of a model version of the model based at least on one or more hardware parameters extracted from the updated model card being incompatible with one or more capabilities of the computing device”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN-113553097-A (involved in configuring a first identifier of a first standard format for a model after the model is established; then, in response to a received request for adjusting the model, adjusting the model, and configuring the upgraded first identifier for the adjusted model; in response to a received request for issuing any model, obtaining and storing current information of any model, and obtaining a business model corresponding to any model; and finally, based on the first identifier of any model, configuring a second identifier in a second standard format for the service model, so that the service model is published in the form of the second identifier. According to the invention, the models of different versions can be managed efficiently and intuitively.)
CN-113642948- A (involved in receiving a model updating request comprising the identification information of service equipment and the description information of a first model file, and determining target service equipment according to the identification information of the service equipment, sending a model updating instruction including description information of the first model file to the determined target service equipment, wherein the model updating instruction is used for instructing the target service equipment to obtain the first model file from a model warehouse according to the description information of the first model file, and using the first model file to process the received service request. Through the above embodiment, the service and the model can be decoupled, efficient management of the model and the model configuration of the service equipment is realized, and the complexity of operation and maintenance is effectively reduced.)
US 12174800 (involved in identifying a first model state and a second model state corresponding to a model object based on an input. The first model state is generated based on a first set of known variables. The second model state is generated based on the model object in the first model state and a second set of known variables. The processor generates a representation of data indicative of a set of model states of the model object, where the set of model states consist of the first model state and the second model state. The processor generates the first set of functions based on the first set of known variables, where the first set of functions contain a first parameter. The processor generates the second set of functions based on the first model state and the second set of known variables, where the second set of functions contain an updated first parameter that is different than the first parameter.)
CN-113642948-A (involves in receiving a model update request. The model update instruction includes identification information of a service device and description information of the first model file. A target service device is determined according to the identification information. A model updating instruction is sent to the target service devices. The modeling update instruction is used to instruct the target business device to obtain the first modeling file from the model warehouse according to description information. The received service request is processed by using the first modeling file. The identification information is obtained of the service device.)
CN-107247592-A (involved in converting a lower line model file to a predetermined format. A model upload module uploads the predetermined format of a model file. A model testing module tests the pre-compiled model file for a production environment. The model file is sent to an on-line if testing process is successful. The model file is deleted from a cache if the testing process is fail. A model managing module receives a request of a client to obtain the model file in the cache according to a model name in the request. The request is processed by executing the model file.)
CN-112036558-A (involves in receiving a calling request from a user terminal, where the calling request includes hardware information of the user terminal and identification information of a called model. A target model adapted to the hardware information is determined corresponding to the identification information. The target model is transmitted to the user terminal. A delegation request is obtained. To-be-processed data is received. The to-be-processed data is processed by the target model to obtain a processing result.)
US 8924193 (involved in providing the formatted first conflicting information and the formatted second conflicting information to the modeling application. The information that identifies the first variant and the second variant are provided through a user interface and based on providing the formatted first and second conflicting information. A user selection of information that identifies one of the first variant or the second variant is received. )
CN-110018835-A (involves in determining difference between old and present versions of YANG model when version upgrade of the YANG model is completed. The configuration data files of the old version of the YANG model are adjusted according to the difference between the old and present versions of the YANG model. The adjusted configuration data file is configured as a configuration data file of the present version YANG model. The present and old versions of the YANG model is determined when the version of the YANG model is upgraded. Correctness and/or completeness of the YANG file of the present version of the YANG model is verified when the version of the YANG model is upgraded.)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN M CORRIELUS whose telephone number is (571)272-4032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30a-10p(Midflex).
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, Ann J Lo can be reached at (571)272-9767. 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.
/JEAN M CORRIELUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159 July 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights