DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1-5, 9, 11-13, and 15-20 are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has obviated most, but not all, of the objections to the specification, drawings, and claims made in the last Office action. To the extent that an objection or rejection appears in the previous Office Action(s) but not this Office Action, that objection or rejection is withdrawn. To the extent that it appears both in a previous Office Action(s) and this Office Action, the objection or rejection is maintained.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on March 18 and April 8, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: all instances of “e.g.” should be “e.g.,” (i.e., with a comma following the “e.g.”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 limitation(s) is/are: “transformation unit” in claim 17 and “control logic” in claims 17 and 19.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 17-19 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 claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled 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.
Claim limitations “transformation unit” and “control logic” 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 functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. Therefore, it is unclear whether Applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. See analysis under 35 USC § 112 infra for further detail.
Claims 17-19 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.
Claim limitations “transformation unit” and “control logic” 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 functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions.
Regarding the “transformation unit,” the specification at paragraphs 122-128 and Figure 8, among others, describe the operations of the transformation unit. However, the description does little more than repeat the claim language reciting the generation of the forward and backward RNNs and unrolling them without providing an algorithm for how those operations are accomplished.
Regarding the “control logic,” at most paragraph 116 indicates that the control logic may comprise software, firmware, or a dedicated processor, but does not meaningfully detail how the control logic performs the claimed function of “implement[ing] the derivative neural network at the hardware accelerator so as to perform the BRNN on the sequence of inputs.” Indeed, that same paragraph attempts to justify the lack of disclosure of an algorithm sufficient for performing the entire claimed functions by stating that the use of control logic is “known in the art”. But Applicant cannot rely on what it takes to be common knowledge in the art to provide the structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions; rather, it must positively identify what that structure or material or what those acts are.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claims so that the claim limitations will no longer be interpreted as limitations 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 functions, 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 functions recited in the claims, 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 functions so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed functions, 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 functions and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed functions, 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 functions. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
All claims dependent on a claim rejected hereunder are also rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 9, 11-13, 15-16, and 20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: None of the prior art of record appears to disclose explicitly at least the following limitations of the independent claims as amended, when considered in combination with the remainder of the claims:
the BRNN is a sequential BRNN and either:
each step of the forward RNN is for operation on an input of the sequence and its corresponding forward state, and each step of the backward RNN is for operation on the corresponding backward state and an output of the corresponding step of the forward RNN operating on the input of the sequence; or
each step of the backward RNN is for operation on an input of the sequence and its corresponding backward state, and each step of the forward RNN is for operation on the corresponding forward state and an output of the corresponding step of the backward RNN operating on the input of the sequence.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 26, 2026 (“Remarks”) have been fully considered but they are, except insofar as a rejection has been withdrawn, not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the specification contains sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions recited by the limitations that invoke 35 USC § 112(f) because (a) the transformation unit’s functions of unrolling the RNN are proclaimed “known in the art” by the specification and the specification states that its functions may be embodied in software, hardware, or firmware; and (b) paragraph 115 of the specification provides the structure for performing the functions of the control logic. Remarks at 21-23. However, once a limitation invokes § 112(f), the specification itself must provide the structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions. “A bare statement that known techniques or methods can be used would not be a sufficient disclosure to support a means-plus-function limitation.” MPEP § 2181(III), first paragraph (quoting Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs. Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 953, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Moreover, the cited paragraph 115 (Applicant presumably refers to the application as published, because the filed specification contains no paragraph numbers) does not provide an algorithm for performing the claimed function of “implement[ing] the derivative neural network at the hardware accelerator so as to perform the BRNN on the sequence of inputs”, but rather merely delineates what hardware is used.
For Applicant’s convenience, a proposed amendment that is believed to overcome the rejection is provided below. Note that the proposal is supported at least by pages 57-58 of the specification as originally filed.
17. (Currently amended) A data processing system for implementing a bidirectional recurrent neural network (BRNN) for operation on a sequence of inputs, each step of the BRNN being for operation on (a) an input of the sequence, (b) corresponding backward state generated in respect of a subsequent input of the sequence, and (c) corresponding forward state generated in respect of a preceding input of the sequence, the system comprising:
a hardware accelerator for processing neural networks;
a processor; and
a memory coupled to the processor, wherein the memory contains instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
a forward recurrent neural network (RNN) for operation on the forward state over the inputs of the sequence; and
a backward recurrent neural network (RNN) for operation on the backward state over the inputs of the sequence;
the forward and backward RNNs being unrolled over the inputs of the sequence;
the derivative neural network being equivalent to the BRNN for each of the sequence of inputs;
wherein the BRNN is a sequential BRNN and either:
each step of the forward RNN is for operation on an input of the sequence and its corresponding forward state, and each step of the backward RNN is for operation on the corresponding backward state and an output of the corresponding step of the forward RNN operating on the input of the sequence; or
each step of the backward RNN is for operation on an input of the sequence and its corresponding backward state, and each step of the forward RNN is for operation on the corresponding forward state and an output of the corresponding step of the backward RNN operating on the input of the sequence.
18. (Currently amended) The data processing system of claim 17, wherein the hardware accelerator and the instructions are incapable of executing the received representation of the BRNN.
19. (Currently amended) The data processing system of claim 17, wherein the forward and backward operations at each step of the BRNN are independent, each step of the forward RNN is for operation on an input of the sequence and its corresponding forward state, and each step of the backward RNN being for operation on an input of the sequence and its corresponding backward state, wherein the instructions are configured to implement the derivative neural network by implementing the forward and backward RNNs for concurrent operation at the hardware accelerator so as to perform the forward and backward RNNs in parallel.
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 RYAN C VAUGHN whose telephone number is (571)272-4849. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 7:00a-5:00p ET.
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, Kamran Afshar, can be reached at 571-272-7796. 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.
/RYAN C VAUGHN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2125
Prosecution Insights