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 .
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 10 and 12-13 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.
Claim 10 is rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite as it is not clear to examiner what the claims is trying to convey or means. It not clear if there is typo, whether words are missing, or if words were unintentionally included, but it’s not clear what the claim means. In the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the claim to mean: “wherein the method further comprises change the response waveforms between a selection of the connections and the nodes.”.
Claims 12 and 13 recites the limitation "the parameters of a function”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-17 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process of observation, evaluation and judgement. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor does it amount to significantly more because the additional elements of the claim are mere instruction to implement the abstract idea using generic computer hardware. See the analysis below for further details.
Claim 1 and 22
Step 1: The claim recites a method and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, therefore, the claims falls into the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
setting a total number of connections between the nodes in the artificial recurrent neural network, wherein the total number of connections determines a number of classes of entangled states of the artificial recurrent neural network;
setting a number of sub-connections in the artificial recurrent neural network, wherein a collection of parallel sub-connections forms a single connection between different types of nodes and the number of sub-connections determines variations within each of the classes of entangled states;
setting a level of connectivity between the nodes in the artificial recurrent neural network, wherein the connectivity between the nodes determines a structural topology of the graph of the nodes and the structural topology sets a number and diversity of the entangled states that the artificial recurrent neural network can generate;
setting a direction of information transmission between the nodes in the artificial recurrent neural network;
setting weights of the connections between the nodes in the artificial recurrent neural network, wherein the weight settings for each type of synaptic connection determines the number and the diversity of the entangled states of the artificial recurrent neural network;
setting response waveforms in the connections between the nodes, wherein the responses are induced by a single spike in a sending node;
setting transmission dynamics in the connections between the nodes, wherein the transmission dynamics characterize changing response amplitudes of an individual connections during a sequence of spikes from a sending node;
setting transmission probabilities in the connections between the nodes, wherein the transmission probabilities characterize a likelihood that a response is generated by the parallel sub-connections that form a given connection given a spike in a sending neuron;
setting spontaneous transmission probabilities in the connections between the nodes;
(All of the above steps of mental processes of observation, evaluation and judgement wherein a user determiners what each setting in a program should be. This is supported by instant specification in paragraphs [0002] and [0069] wherein it cites “A neurosynaptic computer can be implemented in software operating on conventional digital computers and implemented in hardware running on neuromorphic computing architectures. A neurosynaptic computer can be used for computing, storage and communication and is applicable for the development of a wide range of scientific, engineering and commercial applications.” and “Designing software and hardware applications with a neurosynaptic computer, involves setting the parameters of each component of the system and allowing the components to optimize on sample input data to produce the desired computing capabilities.”)
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
training the artificial recurrent neural network to a specific task by entangling responses of the artificial recurrent neural network that comport with topological patterns of activity and that represent computations of a target cognitive algorithm, wherein the responses of the artificial recurrent neural network are entangled to construct successively higher levels in a hierarchy of decisions in the target cognitive algorithm. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium encoded with executable instructions, that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations from constructing connections between nodes of an artificial recurrent neural network that mimics a target brain tissue. (This is adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as its mere instructions to implement the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of “training the artificial recurrent neural network to a specific task by entangling responses of the artificial recurrent neural network that comport with topological patterns of activity and that represent computations of a target cognitive algorithm, wherein the responses of the artificial recurrent neural network are entangled to construct successively higher levels in a hierarchy of decisions in the target cognitive algorithm.” Is adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)/
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they as it merely instructions to implement to abstract idea.
Claim 2
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
wherein the total number of connections in the artificial recurrent neural network mimics a total number of synapses of a comparably sized portion of the target brain tissue. (This is a mental process of setting number of connections to be similar to human brain.)
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites: There are no additional limitations.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. There are no additional limitations.
Claim 3
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
wherein the number of parallel sub-connections mimics the number of synapses used to form single connections between different types of neurons in the target brain tissue. (This is a mental process of setting number of connections.)
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites: There are no additional limitations.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. There are no additional limitations.
Claim 4
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
wherein level of connectivity between the nodes in the artificial recurrent neural network mimics specific synaptic connectivity between the neurons of the target brain tissue. (This is a mental process of setting the level of connective to mimic the human brain.)
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites: There are no additional limitations.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. There are no additional limitations.
Claim 5
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
wherein the direction of information transmission between the nodes in the artificial recurrent neural network mimics the directionality of synaptic transmission by synaptic connections of the target brain tissue. (This is a mental process of direction transmission to mimic the human brain.)
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites: There are no additional limitations.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. There are no additional limitations.
Claim 6
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
wherein a distribution of the weights of the connections between the nodes mimics weight distributions of synaptic connections between nodes in the target brain tissue (This is a mental process of selecting weight distribution to mimic the human brain.)
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites: There are no additional limitations.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. There are no additional limitations.
Claim 7
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
wherein the method further comprises changing the weight of a selected of the connections between selected of the nodes. (This is a mental process of making weight between connection different or vary.)
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites: There are no additional limitations.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. There are no additional limitations.
Claim 8
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
wherein the method further comprises transiently shifting or changing the overall distribution of the weights of the connections between the nodes.. (This is a mental process of changing the weight distribution between nodes.)
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites: There are no additional limitations.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. There are no additional limitations.
Claim 9
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
wherein the response waveforms mimics location-dependent shapes of synaptic responses generated in a corresponding type of neuron of the target brain tissue (This is a mental process of selecting a response waveform so that it mimic brain response waveforms.)
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites: There are no additional limitations.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. There are no additional limitations.
Claim 10
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
wherein the response waveforms mimics location-dependent shapes of synaptic responses generated in a corresponding type of neuron of the target brain tissue (This is a mental process of selecting a response waveform for some connections and nodes.)
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites: There are no additional limitations.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. There are no additional limitations.
Claim 11
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
transiently changing a distribution of the response waveforms in the connections between the nodes. (This is a mental process of selecting a different distribution of response waveforms in the connections between the nodes.)
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites: There are no additional limitations.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. There are no additional limitations.
Claim 12
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
changing the parameters of a function that determines the transmission dynamics in a selected of the connections between selected of the nodes. (This is a mental process of determining what parameters to change and doing so.)
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites: There are no additional limitations.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. There are no additional limitations.
Claim 13
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
transiently changing a distribution of the parameters of functions that determine the transmission dynamics in the connections between the nodes. (This is a mental process of determining what the distribution of parameters should and selecting or changing it.)
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites: There are no additional limitations.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. There are no additional limitations.
Claim 14
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
changing a selected of the transmission probabilities in a selected of the connections between nodes. (This is a mental process of a user determining and selecting transmission probabilities between nodes. )
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites: There are no additional limitations.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. There are no additional limitations.
Claim 15
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
transiently changing the transmission probabilities in the connections between nodes. (This is a mental process of a user determining and selecting transmission probabilities between nodes. )
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites: There are no additional limitations.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. There are no additional limitations.
Claim 16
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
changing a selected of the spontaneous transmission probabilities in a selected of the connections between nodes. (This is a mental process of a user determining and changing spontaneous transmission probabilities between nodes. )
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites: There are no additional limitations.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. There are no additional limitations.
Claim 17
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
transiently changing the spontaneous transmission probabilities in the connections between nodes. (This is a mental process of a user determining and changing spontaneous transmission probabilities between nodes. )
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites: There are no additional limitations.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. There are no additional limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (“Coarse-to-fine: A RNN-based Hierarchical Attention Model for Vehicle Re-Identification” – hereinafter Wei) and further in view of Li et al. (“Independently Recurrent Neural Network (IndRNN): Building A Longer and Deeper RNN” – hereinafter Li).
In regards to claim 19, Wei discloses a method of improving a response of an artificial recurrent neural network, the method comprising: training the artificial recurrent neural network to a specific task that comport with topological patterns of activity and that represent computations of a target cognitive algorithm, wherein the responses of the artificial recurrent neural network are to construct successively higher levels in a hierarchy of decisions in the target cognitive algorithm. (Wei introduction teaches the RNN-HA mode is “end-to-end trainable” and says the includes RNN-based hierarchical module and attention module. This means the RNN is trained. Section 3.2 in “RNN-based hierarchical module” teaches the equations used, and this shows that RNN modules hidden state are learned during training. The same section also teaches total loss combining coarse grained model level loss with fine grained vehicle level loss, those construction successively high levels in hierarchy of decision in the target cognitive algorithm. Also, the vehicle-identification is specific task the model is trained for.
However, Wei does not explicitly disclose entangling response of the artificial neural network.
Li et al. disclose entangling response of the artificial neural network. ( Li abstract teaches “ In addition, all the neurons in an RNN layer are entangled together and their behavior is hard to interpret.” and page 1 right column last paragraph cites “Moreover, the existing RNN models share the same component σ(Wxt + Uht−1 + b) in (1), where the recurrent connection entangles all the neurons. This makes it hard to interpret and understand the roles of the trained neurons (e.g., what patterns each neuron responds to) since the simple visualization of the outputs of individual neurons [19] is 1 hard to ascertain the function of one neuron without considering the others.” This means that typical RNN have the output of all nodes entangles to generate its output and this represents its topological pattern of activity.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of the Wei with the Li in order to allow for entangling the output of the RNN neurons as all RNN neurons are entangled unless it specifical built to be an independent recurrent neural network which is not typical as suggested by Li in the abstract and Introduction. The benefit of entangling neurons is that allows RNN to handle input sequences of varying lengths and hidden states are continuously updated.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-17, 19 and 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 PAULINHO E SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1358. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 10AM-6PM CST.
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, Abdullah Kawsar can be reached at 571-270-3169. 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.
/PAULINHO E SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2127
Prosecution Insights