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 .
Amendments
This action is in response to amendment filed March 23rd, 2026, in which Claims 1-7, 9, 12, 26, 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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites encoding each of the neural network parameters …. using context-adaptive arithmetic coding when discussing the decoder. This appears to be a typographical error which should read decoding each of the neural network parameters … using context-adaptive arithmetic decoding. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claims 2-28 recite an apparatus without reciting a processor, where the broadest reasonable interpretation of an apparatus includes a set of software to perform the encoding and decoding, and thus the claim recites a scope which includes software per se. Software per se is not a process, machine, article of manufacture, nor a composition of matter.
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, 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;
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 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, 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 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 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 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, 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 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;
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 Thus, the claim recites an 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, 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.
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 March 23rd, 2026 have been fully considered, but are not fully persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments in combination with the approval of a Terminal Disclaimer have overcome the statutory double patenting rejections of the previous office action.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the Claim Objections of the previous office action, but have caused a new Claim Objection to be made in this office action.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections of the previous office action have been fully considered, and due to claim amendments, the rejections have been withdrawn.
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 amendment of Claim 1 to recite a non-transitory digital storage medium has overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, as not falling into any of the four statutory categories, of the previous office action. However, applicant’s amendments to Claim 1 have necessitated a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, as directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. Applicant argues that “the architectural arrangement of fields and semantics is tailored to the structure of neural network tensors” and “applying context-adaptive arithmetic coding to each parameter in the selected order creates specific statistical context and decoding behaviors that change how computers handle the data” but does but not provide either 1) an identification of an additional element to the abstract idea which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (no such additional elements have been identified) nor an explanation as to how a technology is improved by any additional element of the claims (the claim cannot simply state the improvement, but must state the steps by which the improvement is achieved). Applicant argues (Section VIII) “The claim recites a statutory article of manufacture containing a specifically structured data stream and encoding technique integrated into the practical application of deploying and executing neural networks for picture/video analysis, thereby improving computer functionality” but fails to address how the computer functionality is improved. There is no argument about what functionality is improved, nor any argument about how the unnamed functionality improvement is effectuated by having a data stream with multiple optional specifiable coding orders.
Applicant has failed to address the rejections of Claims 2-28 as having a scope which includes software per se (as an apparatus is not necessarily a machine or article of manufacture, and no processor or physical hardware is recited), and as such the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections under that basis (claiming embodiments not falling within any of the four statutory categories) is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of Claims 2-28 and 31 as being directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues (pg. 15 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 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 next argues (Step 2B) that the combination of “choosing, coding, and embedding” 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 not actually recited in the claims, and thus these features (decode in execution order, optimize memory layout, etc.) cannot provide an improvement. To achieve an improvement in technology, the claim must recite the steps by which the improvement is achieved (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)) rather than merely state that the invention achieves an improvement, as the current claims do.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the improvement under “Serialization parameter as a control field” suffers from the same pitfalls – applicant claims “Emitting a machine-interpretable control field that binds the receiver’s decode and memory layout …” but no such control field is claimed – no memory layout is at all mentioned in the claims, only a parameter which describes an order in which the data has been encoded.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Petroski, US PG Pub 2019/0188553, teaches a method of encoding/decoding a neural network including a data stream parameter indicating one of a plurality of coding scan orders (permutations).
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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