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 .
This action is responsive to the original application filed on 8/31/2022. Acknowledgment is made with respect to a claim of priority to Dutch Application NL2032686 filed on 8/4/2022.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is greater than 150 words in length (189 total words). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they are printed in such a low resolution such that the words and illustrations in the drawings cannot be easily read or ascertained. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-18 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 1 recites the limitation “selecting the dendritic segment with the highest response to the context vector” (emphasis added). The term “highest response” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “highest response” 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. It appears that paragraph [0065] of the originally filed specification indicates that a highest response is related to a maximum absolute value of some form of response determined by equation 4, but it is not clear from the claim language or specification that the “highest response” must be the described maximum absolute value. Please explain what this claim element means. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted to mean selecting a dendritic segment with any response or relationship to a context vector. Dependent claims 2-16 depend on indefinite claim 1, and are also rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) by virtue of this dependency. Claims 17 and 18 incorporate the indefinite element of claim 1, and are also rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) for the same reasons as claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the step of using Oja's rule for adding weight decay to the Hebbian update” (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the Hebbian update”. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted to mean “the step of using Oja's rule for adding weight decay to a Hebbian update”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “identifying synapses that are important for learned tasks” (emphasis added). The term “important” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “important” 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. Please explain what it means for a synapse to be “important” for learned tasks. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted to mean identifying synapses that are related to learned tasks. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 recites the limitations “upscaling the importance estimate of the excitatory connections to the inhibitory neurons; and upscaling the intra-layer inhibitory connections” (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for the emphasized elements in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted to mean “upscaling an importance estimate of to the inhibitory neurons; and upscaling ”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subjected matter because the claimed invention is directed towards signals per se.
With respect to independent claim 17, the originally filed specification fails to disavow any transitory signals as part of the claimed computer-readable medium. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, the “computer-readable medium” of claim 17 may encompass transitory signals, and is thus directed towards signals per se. Examiner suggests amending claim 17 and its dependents to recite "A non-transitory computer-readable medium”. Appropriate correction is required.
Conclusion
The claims have been searched, but no prior art was uncovered.
The closest prior art of record Grewal et al. “Going Beyond the Point Neuron: Active Dendrites and Sparse Representations for Continual Learning” discloses a continual learning scenario that makes use of modulating neuron responses and dendritic segments, but fails to explicitly disclose calculating a feedforward activity in each layer by calculating a linear weighted sum of feedforward inputs, wherein outputs of the excitatory neurons are impacted by a subtractive inhibition from the inhibitory neurons … selecting the dendritic segment with the highest response to the context vector; and modulating the feedforward activity of the excitatory neurons by the selected dendritic segment, all taught in the context of the remaining claim limitations and when considered as a whole, as claimed.
Further, Shaiba Nassar et al. (WO 2023/154919 A1) discloses an artificial neuromorphic neural network architecture including a feedforward connectivity structure and/or a lateral connectivity structure, but fails to explicitly disclose calculating a feedforward activity in each layer by calculating a linear weighted sum of feedforward inputs, wherein outputs of the excitatory neurons are impacted by a subtractive inhibition from the inhibitory neurons … selecting the dendritic segment with the highest response to the context vector; and modulating the feedforward activity of the excitatory neurons by the selected dendritic segment, all taught in the context of the remaining claim limitations and when considered as a whole, as claimed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Grewal et al., “Going Beyond the Point Neuron: Active Dendrites and Sparse Representations for Continual Learning”, Oct. 26, 2021, bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.10.25.465651, pp. 1-25.
Shaiba Nassar et al. (WO 2023/154919 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brent Hoover whose telephone number is (303)297-4403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5 MST.
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 on 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.
/BRENT JOHNSTON HOOVER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2127