DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
an optimization unit, in claim 1, and claim 6;
a candidate calculation unit, in claim 5, and claim 7; and
an optimum value determination unit, in claim 5, and claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Specification
The specification is objected to because the limitations “optimization unit”, “candidate calculation unit”, and “optimum value determination unit” invoke 35 USC 112(f) or pre-AIA USC 112 sixth paragraph. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these claim elements is the structure, material, or acts described in the specification for performing the entire claim function and equivalents. See MPEP 2181. The specification fails to provide description of this element to perform the claimed function. See rejection under 35 USC 112(b) below for further details as to the description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skill in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claim 1, and claim 5-7 limitation a “optimization unit”, and claim 5 and claim 7 limitations “candidate calculation unit” and “optimum value determination unit” invoke 35 USC 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to provide an adequate description of the structure, material, or acts to perform the claimed functions of these limitations. See rejection under 35 USC 112(b) below for further details as to the lack of structure. Claims 2-5 inherit the same deficiency as claim 1 based on dependence. Claims 7 inherits the same deficiency as claim 6 based on dependence.
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 1-7 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 claim 1, and claim 5-7 limitation a “optimization unit”, and claim 5 and claim 7 limitations “candidate calculation unit” and “optimum value determination unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Claims 2-5 inherit the same deficiency as claim 1 based on dependence. Claims 7 inherits the same deficiency as claim 6 based on dependence.
As to the “optimization unit”, the specification describes this unit in terms of mathematical equations, lacking structure, material or acts to perform the claim functions. See specification [0031-0032], [0079], [0083-0086], [0109-0115]. Furthermore, the drawings depict the optimization unit in terms of a black box. See figure 4. Furthermore, the specification further describes the “optimization unit” as comprising a “candidate calculation unit” and an “optimum value determination unit”. See figure 6. However these limitations are also being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f), and lack the required structure, material or acts for performing the entire claimed function. See below.
As to the “candidate calculation unit”, the specification describes this unit in terms of mathematical equations, lacking structure, material or acts to perform the claim functions. See specification [0088-0089], [0101-0102], [0116-0117]. Furthermore, the drawings depict the “candidate calculation unit” in terms of a black box. See figure 6.
As to the “optimum value determination unit”, the specification describes this unit in terms of mathematical equations, lacking structure, material or acts to perform the claim functions. See specification [0090], [0103], [0118]. Furthermore the drawings depict the “optimum value determination unit” in terms of a black box. See fig 6.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 1 falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 USC 101: a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 1 recites mathematical concepts including mathematical equations, mathematical relationships, mathematical calculations related to solving an optimization problem. Specifically, the claim recites the following mathematical equations, mathematical relationships, and mathematical calculations:
calculates an optimum value w*, of a filter coefficient w={w1,…,wF} (wf (f=1,…, F, F is an integer equal to or more than 1) is a filter coefficient of a frequency bin f) of a beamformer that emphasizes sound (hereinafter referred to as target sound) from D sound sources (hereinafter referred to as a sound source 1,…, a sound source D),
D being an integer equal to or more than 1,
Rf (f=1, ..., F) being a spatial correlation matrix for sound other than the target sound relevant to the frequency bin f, LMV_f(wf)=wfHRfwf (f=1, ..., F) being a cost function relevant to a filter coefficient wf,
calculating the optimum value w* based on an optimization
PNG
media_image1.png
21
743
media_image1.png
Greyscale
constraint condition,
the predetermined constraint condition not including a constraint relevant to a phase of the filter coefficient wf (f=1, ..., F).
The terms filter coefficient, beamformer, sound, target sound, sound source are not being interpreted as additional elements, but rather as variables in an equation. No structure related to these variables is positively claimed. For these reasons, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, the claim recites the additional elements: a filter coefficient optimization apparatus including an optimization unit. These additional elements merely generally link a generically recited apparatus and generically recited unit without specifically limiting structure for performing the mathematical concepts. Further evidence of the generically recited optimization unit is in the lack of structure found in the disclosure in interpreting under 35 USC 112(f). See rejections under 35 USC 112(a), and 35 USC 112(b) above. Furthermore, the claim merely inferentially links the mathematical equations to an intended field of use. For these reasons, claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Step 2B analysis, as stated in the step 2A prong 2 analysis, the claims merely generally link generically recited elements, and merely inferentially links the mathematical equations to an intended field of use. What is novel is the mathematical concepts, which is not an inventive concept under the Alice Framework. The 'inventive concept cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law or nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself. MPEP 2106.05.I. See also MPEP 2106.05(a). "The judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement". For these reasons, claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2-5 are rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claims 2-4 merely further mathematically limit the abstract set forth in claim 1. Claims 2-4 recite no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 5 recites the following further additional element: the optimization unit includes: a candidate calculation unit, and an optimum value determination unit. Under the step 2A prong 2 analysis, and step 2B analysis, the claim merely generally links generically recited elements, and merely inferentially links the mathematical equations to an intended field of use. Furthermore, further evidence of the generically recited optimization unit is in the lack of structure found in the disclosure in interpreting under 35 USC 112(f). See rejections under 35 USC 112(a), and 35 USC 112(b) above. For these reasons claim 5 neither integrates into a practical application nor amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites a method that would be practiced by the apparatus of claim 1. All steps performed by the method of claim 8 are practiced by the apparatus of claim 1 as configured. The claim 1 analysis applies equally to claim 8.
Claim 10 recites a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that causes a computer to function as the filter coefficient optimization apparatus according to claim 1. All steps caused to be performed by the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium of claim 10 are practiced by the apparatus of claim 1 as configured. The claim 1 analysis applies equally to claim 10.
Regarding claim 6, under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 1 falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 USC 101: a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 1 recites mathematical concepts including mathematical equations, mathematical relationships, mathematical calculations related to solving an optimization problem. Specifically, the claim recites the following mathematical equations, mathematical relationships, and mathematical calculations:
calculates an optimum value ~w* of a latent variable ~w based on an
PNG
media_image2.png
20
713
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lconvex being a strongly convex function relevant to the latent variable ~w. Ld (d=1,…, D, D is an integer equal to or more than 1) being a function relevant to the latent variable ~w,
C being an integer equal to or more than 1,Sa,..., Sd,C (d=1.... D) being a region that is obtained by dividing a domain of the function Ld into C closed convex sets,
∧
d,C (d=1,...,D, c=1,..., C) being a convex function that is defined on the region Sd,c and that approximates the function Ld,cd (d=1,..., D) being a discrete variable that has a value of 1, ..., C,
calculating the optimum value ~w* by solving an optimization problem minc_1,…,c_D(min)(Lconvex(~w)
Σ
d=1D
∧
d,c(~w))) relevant to the latent variable ~w and the discrete variable c1,...,cD) instead of solving the optimization problem
PNG
media_image3.png
21
265
media_image3.png
Greyscale
For these reasons, claim 6 recites an abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, the claim recites the additional elements: a latent variable optimization apparatus including an optimization unit. These additional elements merely generally link a generically recited apparatus and generically recited unit without specifically limiting structure for performing the mathematical concepts. Further evidence of the generically recited optimization unit is in the lack of structure found in the disclosure in interpreting under 35 USC 112(f). See rejections under 35 USC 112(a), and 35 USC 112(b) above. For these reasons, claim 6 is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Step 2B analysis, as stated in the step 2A prong 2 analysis, the claims merely generally link generically recited elements. What is novel is the mathematical concepts, which is not an inventive concept under the Alice Framework. The 'inventive concept cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law or nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself. MPEP 2106.05.I. See also MPEP 2106.05(a). "The judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement". For these reasons, claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 6. Claims 7 further mathematically limit the abstract set forth in claim 6. Claim 7 therefore recites and abstract idea. Claim 7 recites the following further additional element: the optimization unit includes: a candidate calculation unit, and an optimum value determination unit. Under the step 2A prong 2 analysis, and step 2B analysis, the claim merely generally links generically recited elements to the abstract idea. Further evidence of the generically recited optimization unit is in the lack of structure found in the disclosure in interpreting under 35 USC 112(f). See rejections under 35 USC 112(a), and 35 USC 112(b) above. For these reasons claim 7 neither integrates into a practical application nor amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites a method that would be practiced by the apparatus of claim 6. All steps performed by the method of claim 8 are practiced by the apparatus of claim 6 as configured. The claim 6 analysis applies equally to claim 9.
Claim 11 recites a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that causes a computer to function as the filter coefficient optimization apparatus according to claim 6. All steps caused to be performed by the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium of claim 11 are practiced by the apparatus of claim 6 as configured. The claim 6 analysis applies equally to claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 101, 35 USC 112(a), and 35 USC 112(b). The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. Applicant claims apparatus, methods, and non-transitory computer-readable recording medium related to solving an optimization problem, wherein the apparatus of claim 1 comprises:
a filter coefficient optimization apparatus including an optimization unit that calculates an optimum value w*, of a filter coefficient w={w1,…,wF} (wf (f=1,…, F, F is an integer equal to or more than 1) is a filter coefficient of a frequency bin f) of a beamformer that emphasizes sound (hereinafter referred to as target sound) from D sound sources (hereinafter referred to as a sound source 1,…, a sound source D),
D being an integer equal to or more than 1,
Rf (f=1, ..., F) being a spatial correlation matrix for sound other than the target sound relevant to the frequency bin f, LMV_f(wf)=wfHRfwf (f=1, ..., F) being a cost function relevant to a filter coefficient wf,
the optimization unit calculating the optimum value w* based on an optimization
PNG
media_image1.png
21
743
media_image1.png
Greyscale
constraint condition,
the predetermined constraint condition not including a constraint relevant to a phase of the filter coefficient wf (f=1, ..., F).
The apparatus as in claim 6 comprises:
a latent variable optimization apparatus including an optimization unit that calculates an optimum value ~w* of a latent variable ~w based on an
PNG
media_image2.png
20
713
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lconvex being a strongly convex function relevant to the latent variable ~w. Ld (d=1,…, D, D is an integer equal to or more than 1) being a function relevant to the latent variable ~w,
C being an integer equal to or more than 1,Sa,..., Sd,C (d=1.... D) being a region that is obtained by dividing a domain of the function Ld into C closed convex sets,
∧
d,C (d=1,...,D, c=1,..., C) being a convex function that is defined on the region Sd,c and that approximates the function Ld,cd (d=1,..., D) being a discrete variable that has a value of 1, ..., C,
The optimization unit calculating the optimum value ~w* by solving an optimization problem minc_1,…,c_D(min)(Lconvex(~w)
Σ
d=1D
∧
d,c(~w))) relevant to the latent variable ~w and the discrete variable c1,...,cD) instead of solving the optimization problem
PNG
media_image3.png
21
265
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter are the combination of mathematical steps claimed including the combination of mathematical equations, mathematical relationships, and mathematical calculations. The prior art of record does not teach or suggest the combination of mathematical steps claimed including the combination of mathematical equations, mathematical relationships, and mathematical calculations.
R. Sato et al, Function Designable Beamformer Based on Probabilistic Assumptions on Filter and its Auxiliary Variables, NTT Media Intelligence Laboratories, 2019 (hereinafter “Sato”), is the closest prior art found. Sato discloses a beamformer design method that exploits probabilistic assumptions on auxiliary variables derived from filters and observed signals, using a method to design cost functions that incorporate multiple probabilistic assumptions (abstract, algorithm 1, eqn 19). Sato, does not however teach or suggest the combination of mathematical steps claimed including the combination of mathematical equations, mathematical relationships, and mathematical calculations.
US 10560073 B2 Le Meur et al., (hereinafter “Le Meur”), discloses a method for non-linear estimation of mixed signals from separate sources including calculating successive discrete Fourier transforms of the signal received by the antennas and sampled to obtain a time-frequency P-vector grid of the signal; each element of the grid being referred to as a box and containing a complex vector X forming a measurement; b) For each box, calculating the conditional expectation estimator of the signal, or of the signals, from the measurement X and an a priori probability density for the signals that is a Gaussian mixture weighted by coefficients (abstract, claim 1). Le Meur does not teach or suggest the combination of mathematical steps claimed including the combination of mathematical equations, mathematical relationships, and mathematical calculations.
US 20200005770 A1 Lunner et al., (hereinafter “Lunner”), discloses a speech classification apparatus for hearing devices with electroencephalography, EEG, dependent sound processing, comprising a sound processing unit configured to capturing sound input signals from at least one external microphone and segmenting said captured sound input signals into segmented sound signals, including a mapping unit configured to select a predetermined number of coefficients , and a correlation unit configured to calculate a correlation value for each captured sound input signal based on a correlation of the predetermined number of selected coefficients, wherein an attended speech source is classified based on the obtained correlation values. Lunner does not teach or suggest the combination of mathematical steps claimed including the combination of mathematical equations, mathematical relationships, and mathematical calculations.
US 8889572 B2 Ekstrand (hereinafter “Ekstrand”), discloses a method and apparatus for the improvement of low delay modulated digital filter banks. The method employs modulation of an asymmetric low-pass prototype filter and a method for optimizing the coefficients of this filter to reduce passband errors including phase errors (abstract, col 2 line 63-c0l 3 line 33). Ekstrand does not teach or suggest the combination of mathematical steps claimed including the combination of mathematical equations, mathematical relationships, and mathematical calculations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY E LAROCQUE whose telephone number is (469)295-9289. The examiner can normally be reached on 10:00am - 1200pm, 2:00pm - 8pm ET M-F.
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 Andrew Caldwell can be reached on 571-272-3701. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMILY E LAROCQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2182