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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 20th, 2026 has been entered.
Amendments
This action is in response to amendment filed July 20th, 2026, in which Claims 1-3 and 31 are amended. No claims are cancelled nor added. The amendments have been entered, and Claims 1-28 and 31 are currently pending.
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 1-28 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites steps of selecting a coding scan order out of a plurality of coding scan orders, each of with differently and completely traverses neural network parameters and serially encoding neural network parameters into the data stream by traversing and encoding all of the neural network parameters using context-adaptive arithmetic coding, with additional details of the context-adaptive coding recited, which are both mental and mathematical processes, capable of being performed in the human mind, perhaps with a pencil and paper as a mental aid. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea of selecting a coding order and coding according to that order.
The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements consist of:
Non-transitory digital storage medium to store the data stream, which is merely the performance of the abstract idea using generic computer components, which by MPEP 2105.05(f)(2) cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application;
the fact that the neural network parameters that are encoded include a neural network parameters lastly traversed by the selected coding scan order and are parameters for a neural network configured for picture and/or video analysis merely specify the particular data used in the performance of the abstract idea, i.e. specifying a particular technological environment, which by MPEP 2106.05(h) cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, the claim is directed towards the abstract idea of selecting a coding order and coding according to that order.
Finally, the additional elements, either taken alone or in combination, cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because use of generic computer components and specifying a particular technological environment cannot do so, and because there is no nexus between the additional elements to provide an inventive concept. Thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 2 recites a step to encode neural network parameters … into a data stream by traversing and encoding all of the neural network parameters using a selected coding scan order and encoding each of the neural network parameters using context-adaptive arithmetic encoding, with additional details of the context-adaptive coding recited and including selecting the coding scan order out of a plurality of coding scan orders and to provide the data stream with a serialization parameter indicating the selected coding scan order out of the plurality of coding scan orders, which is a mental process capable of performance in the human mind and a mathematical process (i.e. organizing data describing weights of a neural network into an encoding of the weight data, and including a value indicating the order in which the data is scanned). Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea of selecting a coding order and coding according to that order.
The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements consist of:
an apparatus comprising a processor and memory to perform the encoding, which is merely the performance of the abstract idea using generic computer components, which by MPEP 2105.05(f)(2) cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application;
the fact that the neural network parameters that are encoded represent entries of a tensor and define neuron interconnections of the neural network and include a neural network parameters lastly traversed by the selected coding scan order and are parameters for a neural network configured for picture and/or video analysis merely specify the particular data used in the performance of the abstract idea, i.e. specifying a particular technological environment, which by MPEP 2106.05(h) cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application;
and a conclusory statement that the serialization parameter enables an improved efficient execution of the picture and/or video analysis, which is merely an example of reciting “only the idea of a solution or outcome” without the steps that achieve the improvement, which by MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, the claim is directed towards the abstract idea of electing a coding order and coding according to that order.
Finally, the additional elements, either taken alone or in combination, cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because use of generic computer components, specifying a particular technological environment, and assertion of the idea of a solution cannot do so, and because there is no nexus between the additional elements to provide an inventive concept. Thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 3 recites steps to decode from a data stream a serialization parameter indicating a selected coding scan order out of a plurality of coding scan orders each of which differently traverses neural network parameters, a step to serially decode neural network parameters … from the data stream by traversing and decoding all of the neural network parameters using the selected coding scan order and decoding each of the neural network parameters using context-adaptive arithmetic decoding, with additional details of the context-adaptive coding recited, which are mental processes capable of performance in the human mind and a mathematical process (i.e. organizing data describing weights of a neural network into an encoding of the weight data, and including a value indicating the order in which the data is scanned). Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea of decoding parameters from a data stream according to a selected scan order.
The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements consist of:
an apparatus comprising a processor and memory to perform the decoding, which is merely the performance of the abstract idea using generic computer components, which by MPEP 2105.05(f)(2) cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application;
the fact that the neural network parameters encoded in the data stream represent entries of a tensor and define neuron interconnections of the neural network and include a neural network parameters lastly traversed by the selected coding scan order and are parameters for a neural network configured for picture and/or video analysis merely specify the particular data used in the performance of the abstract idea, i.e. specifying a particular technological environment, which by MPEP 2106.05(h) cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, the claim is directed towards the abstract idea of decoding parameters from a data stream according to a selected scan order.
Finally, the additional elements, either taken alone or in combination, cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because use of generic computer components and specifying a particular technological environment, cannot do so, and because there is no nexus between the additional elements to provide an inventive concept. Thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claims 4-16 and 18-28 recite only additional details of the mental process of decoding; including more details about the data sequence which is to be decoded, which is merely specifying the data that the mental process is to be performed upon (i.e. the particular field of use or technological environment of the abstract idea), which by MPEP 2106.05(h) can neither integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 17 specifically limits the abstract idea decoding step to a specific mental and mathematical process (using context initialization at a start of each portion), but recites no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 31 recites precisely the method performed by the apparatus of Claim 3, and is thus rejected for reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 20th, 2026 have been fully considered, but are not fully persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments have caused the withdrawal of the Claim Objections to Claim 3.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of the claims have been fully considered, but are not fully persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments of Claims 2 and 3 to recite a processor and memory has overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, as not falling into any of the four statutory categories, of the previous office action.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of Claims 1-28 and 31 as being directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues (pg. 14 of the response, Step 2A Prong One) that the claim does not recite an abstract ideas; however, “selection among multiple complete scan orders” and “context-adaptive arithmetic coding” and “inclusion of a serialization parameter [in a set of data]” are all mental processes. Applicant references that the process is performed “across the typically millions of entries of a tensor” but this is irrelevant because a) “millions of entries” is not required by the claim language, smaller non-trivial problem sizes fall within the scope of the claim and b) even if “millions of entries” were recited, the use of a computer to “perform repetitive calculations” cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more. None of the other arguments are convincing that the “decoding” is not merely an algorithm performed on data, that could be practically performed by a human, using pencil and paper – everything the applicant describes is judgement and calculation on a stream of data.
Applicant next argues (Step 2A Prong 2) that the recited operations are integrated in the practical application of deploying neural networks, but in the recitation of the claim language, neural networks are merely the field of use of the encoding – merely specifying the type of data (neural network parameters) that are encoded by the mental and mathematical process of encoding. Applicant argues that the claims provide “a specific technological improvement, here in how a computer represents, transmits, and reconstructs a neural network” – but again, no claim limitations require such a steps (specifically, transmission) for an apparatus to fall within the claim scope.
Applicant next argues (Step 2B) that the combination of selecting scan order and electing context amount to significantly more than routine, conventional activity. However, each of these elements are elements of the abstract idea itself, and not additional elements subject to the “significantly more than the abstract ideal” evaluation.
When the applicant discusses the “technical improvement in computer functionality” (top of pg. 17 of the response), the applicant refers to many features recited in the claims, and but makes no arguments as to how any of those features actually improve technology. Further, the claimed invention merely describes how a neural network is encoded and decoded, with no influence on how the neural network is operated, and such the arguments “an improvement in the analysis of a picture of video” is unconvincing.
Thus, without providing the steps of the process which achieve the improvement in technology and also without additional elements that provide the integration or the improvement in technology, the claims remain directed towards the abstract idea of decoding a data stream according to a specified order, which, without further details, is a subject-matter ineligible abstract idea, without significantly more.
Conclusion
The claims have been searched, but no combination of prior art which fairly teaches the combinations of limitations recited in the independent claims has been uncovered.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M SMITH whose telephone number is (469)295-9104. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4pm Pacific.
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, Kakali Chaki can be reached at (571) 272-3719. 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.
/BRIAN M SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2122
Prosecution Insights