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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 01/03/23 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. For IDS reference #5, no statement of relevance in the English language has been provided. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 in claim 18 are:
a first generation unit;
a second generation unit;
a transmission unit; and
a third generation unit.
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.
In review of the specification, the following structure, material, acts are interpreted for the following units:
a first generation unit: The CPU as in figure 24 executing the program PG1 stored on the data storage unit 121 as illustrated in figure 10 including the algorithm blocks as described in [0286-0296], [0304] including input and output connections and equivalents.
a second generation unit: The CPU as in figure 24 executing the program PG2 as illustrated in figure 11 including the algorithm blocks as described in [0290-291], [0304], [0309], including input and output connections and equivalents.
a third generation unit: The CPU as in figure 24 executing the program PG3 as illustrated in figure 12 including the algorithm blocks as described in [0297-0298], [0304], [0313], including input and output connections and equivalents.
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 drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: B6 as in [0027], [0033], [0035], [0041-0043], [0506]). 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. 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.
The specification is objected to because claim element “transmission unit” of claim 18 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the specification 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. See rejection under 35 USC 112(b) below as to the specific elements of the claimed means that are lacking and thus not described in the specification. No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim 18 is 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 limitation “transmission unit” recited in claim 18 invokes 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. See rejection under 35 USC 112(b) below as to the specific reasons these elements are lacking structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function that result in this associated rejection for lack of written description of these required elements.
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.
Claim 18 is 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 18 limitation “transmission unit”, is described in the specification merely in terms of the functions performed without describing any structure of the unit. See e.g., [0311-0312], [0330-0333], [0544]. Furthermore, the drawings depict the “transmission unit” as a black box. See fig 13-134.
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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20160321559 A1 Rose et al., (hereinafter “Rose”).
Regarding claim 1, Rose teaches the following:
inputting first data from a sensor (fig 6-602, 603 [0129], [0012] image date from camera 602, fig 5 501, 502);
generating an objective function for performing sparse modeling on the first data ([0010], [0012] first 3 sentences, fig 5 503, [0149], [0151-0157] L0-norm sparse coding, [0163-0170]) ;
generating a coefficient matrix related to a variable to be optimized in the objective function ([0063-0065] matrix D);
transmitting the coefficient matrix to a first Ising machine that performs combinatorial optimization calculation (fig 4, 432 quantum processor interface, 434 networking, fig 5 504 interact with a quantum processor via the digital computer, fig 1, [0100] communication quantum processor via programming interfaces for transmitting, [0012] middle of page 2 quantum processor, [0015], [0062], [0069], [0075], [0077], [0101]); and
generating an optimum solution of sparse modeling based on second data received from the first Ising machine ([0080-0081]).
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 1 analysis, Rose teaches the following:
wherein the sparse modeling is L0 sparse modeling ([0149], [0151-0157] L0-norm sparse coding).
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 1 analysis, Rose teaches the following:
wherein the variable to be optimized is a binary variable that distinguishes between a non-zero component and a zero component for each component of a sparse variable that models the first data ([0010], [0015], [0235-0236]).
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 1 analysis, Rose teaches the following:
wherein the variable to be optimized is each bit variable obtained by quantizing each component of a sparse variable that models the first data ([0235-0236] from real valued to binary values for quantizing).
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 1 analysis, Rose teaches the following:
wherein the coefficient matrix corresponding to the objective function converted into a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) form is generated ([0010], [0015], [0062], [0065], [0067], [0070], [0103]).
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 5 analysis, Rose teaches the following:
wherein the coefficient matrix is an array including coefficients related to a first-order or higher-order term of the variable to be optimized extracted from the objective function ([0010-0011], [0013], [0065]).
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 1 analysis, Rose teaches the following:
wherein the objective function is a function corresponding to the first data (fig 5 503).
Regarding claim 8, in addition to the teachings addressed in the 1 analysis, Rose teaches the following:
wherein the optimal solution is a solution corresponding to the first data (fig 5 504, 505, [0080-0081]).
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 1 analysis, Rose teaches the following:
wherein the optimal solution is calculated by calculating a value of the non-zero component using the second data ([0075], [0080-0081]).
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 1 analysis, Rose teaches the following:
wherein the first Ising machine is a quantum computer or quantum-inspired computer (fig 1, [0015], [0070]).
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 1 analysis, Rose teaches the following:
further comprising performing dimension selection of the first data by a measurement controller ([0146-0150] HDL software framework for measurement controller including user interface, [0076], [0228], [0307-0308], [0366-0379], [0415]).
Regarding claim 12, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 11 analysis, Rose teaches the following:
wherein the dimension selection uses a sparse observation model ([0415] SVD, [0420] SVD is a sparse coding).
Regarding claim 13, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 12 analysis, Rose teaches the following:
wherein the sparse observation model is generated by a second Ising machine that performs observation dimension selection modeling ([0408-0430], HDL framework performs the sparse observation model [0131-0150]).
Regarding claim 14, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 1 analysis, Rose teaches the following:
selecting, by a user, the first Ising machine by using a user interface (fig 4 [0120-0122], [0147]).
Regarding claim 15, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 14 analysis, Rose teaches the following:
wherein the user interface presents a plurality of selection candidates to the user and transmits the coefficient matrix to the first Ising machine corresponding to a selection candidate selected by the user among the plurality of selection candidates (fig 4, [0122], [0247-0248], [0254-0255], [0366], [0381], [0436]).
Regarding claim 16, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 15 analysis, Rose teaches the following:
wherein the user interface presents detailed information of the selection candidate designated by the user among the plurality of selection candidates (fig 4, [0122], [0247-0248], [0254-0255], [0366], [0381], [0436]).
Regarding claim 17, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 16 analysis, Rose teaches the following:
wherein the detailed information includes at least one of a usage fee, a specification, or a recommended application of the first Ising machine corresponding to the selection candidate (fig 4, [0122], [0247-0248], [0254-0255], [0366], [0381], [0436]).
Regarding claim 18, Rose teaches the following:
a sensor input unit that inputs first data from a sensor (fig 6-602, 603 [0129], [0012] image date from camera 602, fig 5 501, 502);
a first generation unit that generates an objective function for performing sparse modeling on the first data([0010], [0012] first 3 sentences, fig 5 503, [0149], [0151-0157] L0-norm sparse coding, [0163-0170]);
a second generation unit that generates a coefficient matrix related to a variable to be optimized in the objective function ([0063-0065] matrix D);
a transmission unit that transmits the coefficient matrix to a first Ising machine that performs combinatorial optimization calculation (fig 4, 432 quantum processor interface, 434 networking, fig 5 504 interact with a quantum processor via the digital computer, fig 1, [0100] communication quantum processor via programming interfaces for transmitting, [0012] middle of page 2 quantum processor, [0015], [0062], [0069], [0075], [0077], [0101]); and
a third generation unit that generates an optimum solution of sparse modeling based on second data received from the first Ising machine ([0080-0081]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
H. Neven, et al., NIPS 2009 Demonstration: Binary Classification using Hardware Implementation of Quantum Annealing, ResearchGate, 2010, (hereinafter “Neven”), discloses a binary classifier to solve discrete optimization problems using quantum annealing (abstract). Neven further discloses L0-norm regularization using Boolean valued variables (section 3.1), and mapping to hardware using sparse connectivity (section 3.4).
N. Ide et al., Sparse Signal Reconstruction with QUBO Formulation in l0-regularized Linear Regression, ISITA2022, 2022, disclosure by inventor of aspects of the claimed invention.
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/Examiner, Art Unit 2182
Prosecution Insights