Machine learning for computing enabled systems and/or devices

Jasmin Cosic, Miami, FL (US)

USPTO: us-11055583 · published 2026-06-23 · patents · G06N 3/084· G06F 9/30076· G06N 20/00· G06T 7/70· G06V 10/751· G06V 10/94· G06V 30/1916· G06V 30/194

Machine learning for computing enabled systems and/or devices

Jasmin Cosic, Miami, FL (US) This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-24 03:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification patents G06N 3/084G06F 9/30076G06N 20/00G06T 7/70G06V 10/751G06V 10/94G06V 30/1916G06V 30/194

keywords machine learningdevice instructionsdigital picturespartial matchinstruction setscomputing systemssystem adaptation

0 comments

The pith

A system modifies device instruction sets based on partial matches between new and stored digital pictures.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The patent claims a machine learning system that identifies at least partial matches between new digital pictures and previously stored ones to determine modified instruction sets for operating a first device. These modified sets then direct the first or a second device to perform adjusted operations. A sympathetic reader would care if this mechanism allows computing-enabled devices to adapt their behavior dynamically from visual similarities alone. The approach centers on using picture matches to update how devices function without requiring exact matches.

Core claim

The system determines the modified first one or more instruction sets for operating the first device based on the at least partial match between the new one or more digital pictures and the first one or more digital pictures, and causes the first device or the second device to perform one or more operations defined by the modified instruction sets. This includes handling copies of the instruction sets and applying the modifications accordingly.

What carries the argument

The process of determining modified instruction sets from at least partial matches between new digital pictures and stored digital pictures.

Load-bearing premise

That a partial match between digital pictures provides a sufficient and reliable basis for correctly modifying device instruction sets without additional validation or context.

What would settle it

A test case in which the system applies a modified instruction set from a misleading partial picture match and the device then executes an incorrect or unsafe operation would disprove the central claim.

read the original abstract

15 . The system of claim 4 , wherein the machine readable code, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to further perform at least: modifying: the first one or more instruction sets for operating the first device, or a copy of the first one or more instruction sets for operating the first device, and wherein the determining the first one or more instruction sets for operating the first device based on the at least partial match between the new one or more digital pictures and the first one or more digital pictures includes: determining the modified the first one or more instruction sets for operating the first device based on the at least partial match between the new one or more digital pictures and the first one or more digital pictures, or determining the modified the copy of the first one or more instruction sets for operating the first device based on the at least partial match between the new one or more digital pictures and the first one or more digital pictures, and wherein the causing the first device or the second device to perform the one or more operations defined by the first one or more instruction sets for operating the first device includes: causing the first device or the second device to perform one or more operations defined by the modified the first one or more instruction sets for operating the first device, or causing the first device or the second device to perform one or more operations defined by the modified the copy of the first one or more instruction sets for operating the first device.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This is a patent filing of legal claims with no scientific methods, data, or implementations to assess.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this is a US patent document, not a research paper. It consists of legal claims describing a system that uses partial matches between digital pictures to modify instruction sets for operating devices and then execute operations based on those changes. Claim 15 spells this out in repetitive legal phrasing, but the text supplies no further substance.

Nothing here qualifies as new in a scientific or technical sense. Patents assert novelty for legal protection by definition, yet the document offers no comparison to existing work, no model specifications, no training procedures, and no examples of how the image matching or modification would actually function.

The document does not do anything well from a research perspective because it contains no content that can be evaluated, reproduced, or tested. There are no algorithms, architectures, experiments, or results of any kind.

The central soft spot is the complete absence of technical detail. The assumption that partial image matches can drive reliable instruction modifications is simply asserted without support, validation, or even a high-level description of the machine learning component. This makes the claims impossible to assess for feasibility or originality beyond the legal filing itself.

This kind of document is intended for patent examiners, attorneys, and companies interested in intellectual property coverage. Academic or technical readers looking for insights into machine learning or adaptive systems will find nothing of use. It does not deserve peer review in any scientific context because it is not presenting research or evidence; it is a legal instrument. Patent review processes are the appropriate channel if this overlaps with anyone's work.

Referee Report

0 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript consists solely of claim 15 (dependent on claim 4) from US patent 11055583. It asserts that machine-readable code, when executed, modifies the first one or more instruction sets (or a copy thereof) for operating a first device based on an at least partial match between new and existing digital pictures, and causes the first or second device to perform operations defined by the modified instruction sets.

Significance. The claim describes a functional capability for adapting device instruction sets via image matching in a computing-enabled system. No empirical results, derivations, model specifications, or validation data are provided, so significance cannot be assessed beyond the legal drafting of the claim language itself.

minor comments (1)

The text contains repeated phrasing such as 'modified the first one or more instruction sets' and 'modified the copy', which appears to be a drafting artifact rather than intentional technical language.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their review of the manuscript. The submission is a patent claim (claim 15 dependent on claim 4 of US 11055583) in the patents category, which by design is a legal description of an invention rather than an empirical research article. We respond to the referee's observations below.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The manuscript consists solely of claim 15 (dependent on claim 4) from US patent 11055583. It asserts that machine-readable code, when executed, modifies the first one or more instruction sets (or a copy thereof) for operating a first device based on an at least partial match between new and existing digital pictures, and causes the first or second device to perform operations defined by the modified instruction sets.

Authors: This is an accurate characterization of the manuscript content. The text provided is the verbatim language of the dependent claim, which legally defines a system capability for adapting device instruction sets via partial image matching. revision: no
Referee: The claim describes a functional capability for adapting device instruction sets via image matching in a computing-enabled system. No empirical results, derivations, model specifications, or validation data are provided, so significance cannot be assessed beyond the legal drafting of the claim language itself.

Authors: We agree that the manuscript contains no empirical results, derivations, or validation data. This is expected and appropriate because the document is a patent claim, not a scientific paper. Patent claims are evaluated on legal criteria such as novelty, non-obviousness, and enablement rather than experimental validation. The inventive concept here is the use of at least partial image matching to determine and apply modifications to instruction sets that control device operations, which is fully enabled by the claim language for a person skilled in the relevant art. revision: no
Referee: REFEREE RECOMMENDATION: reject

Authors: We respectfully disagree with the recommendation to reject. The manuscript meets the requirements for the patents category on arXiv by providing the exact claim text that discloses the invention. Patent claims serve a distinct purpose from research articles and do not require the elements the referee notes as absent. revision: no

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The document is a patent consisting entirely of legal claim language (claim 15 and related text) with no derivations, equations, models, data, or predictions. The text asserts functional outcomes in self-contained legal phrasing without any chain that reduces a claimed result to its own inputs by construction. No scientific derivation exists to evaluate for circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No scientific content, parameters, axioms, or invented entities are present; the document is a legal patent claim rather than a research paper.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5851 in / 991 out tokens · 35211 ms · 2026-06-24T03:30:49.770256+00:00 · methodology

Machine learning for computing enabled systems and/or devices

Core claim

What carries the argument

Load-bearing premise

What would settle it

discussion (0)