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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claim elements such as “hierarchical control data” and various parameters (Remarks 14-15) are not mathematical relationships. The parameters and control data define settings that applicant uses to encode/decode the neural networks. These claim elements are part of the mathematical relationship applicant uses to encode/decode neural networks.
Applicant argues that the “specification explains that the claimed hierarchical control data structure and serialization parameter provide a specific technical solution to [the need to efficiently represent, transmit, and deploy neural networks for picture and video analysis tasks]” Remarks 16. The efficiency of this setup is undefined. Efficient is not a term of art and it doesn’t have a definition. This claims are directed to an undefined problem (no efficient transmission protocols) with a claim to an undefined solution (efficient transmission), and merely linked to the field of picture/video analysis. This is not well-defined practical application and the claims additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a well-defined practical application.
Applicant argues that their “claims recite specific additional elements beyond any alleged mathematical concepts…” and then argue that parameters for an equation are additional element not in the abstract idea. Parameter and control data are part of the abstract idea, not additional elements.
Applicant argues that the instant claims are analogous to claim 3 in example 47 and claim 2 in example 48 of the USPTO subject matter eligibility guidance. The specification of claim 2 in example 48 disclosed “an improvement over existing speech-separation method by providing a particular speech-separation technique that solves the problem of separating speech from different speech sources belonging to the same class, while not requiring prior knowledge of the number of speakers or speaker-specific training.” And in claim 2 the “claim reflects the improvement discussed in the disclosure by reciting details of how the DNN aids in the cluster assignments to correspond to the sources identified in the mixed speech signal…” This is different than Applicant’s claim where a “video processing” is added to the end of the claim just to link the abstract idea to a field of use. Further, claim 2 didn’t just claim to “improve” speech synthesis – claim 2 disclosed a method that was an improvement over the prior art and then claimed the improved method. In claim 3, example 47, the additional elements drop malicious packets and block future traffic from the source address. This integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, according to the guidance. In Applicant’s claims, the mathematical relationship outputs data that is “configured for a picture and/or video analysis…” This additional element merely links the encoding/decoding to video/image processing. Applicant’s claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant argues that the claims are not merely linked to a field of use. Remarks 18-19. Examiner disagrees for the reasons mentioned above.
Applicant states that the prima facie rejection requires identifying additional elements and evaluating the additional element individually and in combination. Remarks 19. The additional elements are identified as “picture and/or video analysis”, “improved efficient execution of the neural network” and “apparatus, computer and digital storage medium are generic computer parts.” The analysis includes a rationale for why those additional elements alone or in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor amount to significantly more.
Claim Objections
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claims 10, 11, 35 and 36 are out of order.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to data per se with no structural recitation. There is no structural recitation in the body of the claim.
Claims 1-26, 28, 32 and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mathematical relationship without significantly more. The claims recite encoding and decoding neural network parameters using different algorithms. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of “picture and/or video analysis” merely link the claims to a technological area. MPEP 2106.05(h). Further the additional elements of “improved efficient execution of the neural network” are indefinite and encoding and decoding a neural network would make the neural network run slower – due to the extra step of encoding and decoding the neural network parameters. MPEP 2106.05(a). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim elements such as apparatus, computer and digital storage medium are generic computer parts. MPEP 2106.05(h).
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.
Claims 1-26, 28, 32 and 35-36 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 term “improved efficient” in claims 1-3 and 32 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “improved efficient” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Austin Hicks whose telephone number is (571)270-3377. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-4 PST.
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, Mariela Reyes can be reached at (571) 270-1006. 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.
/AUSTIN HICKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2142
Prosecution Insights