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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined herein.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 112(a) and (b).
The rejection under 35 USC 103 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The double patenting rejections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/22/2026 regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103 and on the grounds of Non-statutory Double Patenting have been fully considered but are moot as these rejections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment. In particular, the limitations identified in the rejections under 35 USC 112 with the interpretations described therein and considered in the context of the claim as a whole overcomes the cited art. More specifically, while the use of regularization functions (including regularization functions that use multiple weights) as part of a loss function used to train a neural network is known (see, e.g., Wikipedia, Regularization (mathematics), 30 November 2019 version: SLOPE regularization function in the table at the end of the article), the claim requires that the multi-weight regularization function be “in a structure of the neural network model” and also that the multi-weight regularization function be part of the definition of the relationship between a respective value of each common factor of the training predictor variables from the training vectors and the training outputs of the training vectors. Neither of these features, considered in the context of the claim as a whole and interpreted as indicated in the rejection below, are taught by the prior art or patented claims that formed the basis of the rejections under 35 USC 103 or on the grounds of Non-statutory Double Patenting.
Information Disclosure Statement
The attached information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the attached information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification fails to provide proper antecedent basis for the term “multi-weight regularization term”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 each recite “architectural parameters that describe layer connection weights and a multi-weight regularization term in a structure of the neural network model” in two limitations. This limitation may be parsed in several different ways:
(1) (architectural parameters that describe layer connection weights) and (a multi-weight regularization term in a structure of the neural network model);
(2) architectural parameters that describe (layer connection weights and a (multi-weight regularization term in a structure of the neural network model));
(3) (architectural parameters that describe (layer connection weights and a multi-weight regularization term)) in a structure of the neural network model
(4) ((architectural parameters that describe layer connection weights) and a (multi-weight regularization term)) in a structure of the neural network model.
The architectural parameters are described at as-filed [0060] and [0077]. Neither portion of the specification supports the architectural parameters as describing a multi-weight regularization term. Furthermore, the multi-weight regularization term is described (see, e.g., as-filed [0074-0076, 0097]) as being part of the loss function, not as part of the structure of the neural network model (i.e., “in a structure of the neural network model”). None of the plausible interpretations of the limitation as written are supported by the specification. Any parsing of the limitation would require that architectural parameters that describe layer connection weights be iteratively adjusted and also that a multi-weight regularization term, which is “in a structure of the neural network model” (i.e., is itself part of the structure of the model itself, not just a part of a loss function used to train the neural network model), also be iteratively adjusted. As indicated below with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(b), the limitation is being interpreted as requiring these two features. For the reasons mentioned above, this is not supported by the specification.
The second recitation of the architectural parameters in the “wherein the relationship...” limitation has substantially the same ambiguous parsing problem. Furthermore, the specification does not describe a multi-weight regularization term being part of the relationship. The regularization term is described at [0074-0076, 0097] in connection with the loss function, but not in connection with the relationship between a respective value of each common factor and the training outputs. Any parsing of the limitation requires that the relationship is defined by architectural parameters that describe the layer connection weights, and also that the relationship is defined by the multi-weight regularization term, which is “of the neural network model”. As indicated below with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(b), the limitation is being interpreted as requiring these features. For the reasons mentioned above, this is not supported by the specification.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 do not resolve the issues identified in the independent claims and are rejected with the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 each recite “architectural parameters that describe layer connection weights and a multi-weight regularization term in a structure of the neural network model” in two limitations. This limitation may be parsed in several different ways:
(1) (architectural parameters that describe layer connection weights) and (a multi-weight regularization term in a structure of the neural network model);
(2) architectural parameters that describe (layer connection weights and a (multi-weight regularization term in a structure of the neural network model));
(3) (architectural parameters that describe (layer connection weights and a multi-weight regularization term)) in a structure of the neural network model
(4) ((architectural parameters that describe layer connection weights) and a (multi-weight regularization term)) in a structure of the neural network model.
The architectural parameters are described at as-filed [0060] and [0077]. Neither portion of the specification supports the architectural parameters as describing a multi-weight regularization term. Furthermore, the multi-weight regularization term is described as being part of the loss function, not as part of the structure of the neural network model (see, e.g., as-filed [0074-0076, 0097]). None of the plausible interpretations of the limitation as written are supported by the specification as indicated above regarding the rejection under 35 USC 112(a). Any parsing of the limitation would require that architectural parameters that describe layer connection weights be iteratively adjusted and also that a multi-weight regularization term, which is “in a structure of the neural network model” (i.e., is itself part of the structure of the model itself, not just a part of a loss function used to train the neural network model), also be iteratively adjusted. The limitation is being interpreted as requiring these two features.
The second recitation of the architectural parameters in the “wherein the relationship...” limitation has substantially the same ambiguous parsing problem. Furthermore, the specification does not describe a multi-weight regularization term being part of the relationship as described above regarding the rejection under 35 USC 112(a). The regularization term is described at [0074-0076, 0097] in connection with the loss function, but not in connection with the relationship between a respective value of each common factor and the training outputs. Any parsing of the limitation requires that the relationship is defined by architectural parameters that describe the layer connection weights, and also that the relationship is defined by the multi-weight regularization term, which is “of the neural network model”. The limitation is being interpreted as requiring these features.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 do not resolve the issues identified in the independent claims and are rejected with the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wikipedia, Regularization (mathematics), 30 November 2019 version: SLOPE regularization function in the table at the end of the article shows a multi-weight regularization function.
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 Markus A Vasquez whose telephone number is (303)297-4432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10AM to 2PM PT.
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, Li Zhen can be reached at (571) 272-3768. 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.
/MARKUS A. VASQUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2121
Prosecution Insights