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 .
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 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), 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), 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), 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 are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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) are: “a first/second interface configured to receive/provide” and “a computation unit configured to apply” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The corresponding structure is interpreted to be a processor.
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.
Claim 1-11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
For claims 1, 3, 6, 9-11, 13, 15, and 18, the terms “the respective device”, “the respective variable”, and “the respective distance” (multiple instances for each) lack sufficient antecedent basis in the claims. It is suggested that the first instance for each be amended to “[[the]] a respective device”, “[[the]] a respective variable”, and “[[the]] a respective distance”.
For claims 1, 11, and 13, the term “the corresponding accuracy value” lack sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. It is suggested it be amended to [[the]] a “corresponding accuracy value”.
For claim 1, the claim (specifically, the end of the claim) is syntactically incorrect and thus indefinite. It is suggested it be amended to “the respective device, [[of]] or any combination thereof”.
For claims 4 and 16, the term “the regression model x y” lack sufficient antecedent basis in the claim or is unclear and thus indefinite. A regression model was defined earlier but not regression model x y. Perhaps applicant meant respective distance vectors x and y”.
For claims 6 and 18, the term “the IT system” is indefinite because multiple instances of “IT system” were declared earlier (independent, current, and claim 17), and so it is unclear to which the claim refers to. It is suggested that second instance be amended to “[[a]] the IT system”.
For claims 8, the term “the amendment of the trained function” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim (claim 7 has antecedent basis, not 5).
For claim 9, the terms “the respective interconnected device” (multiple instances) lack sufficient antecedent basis in the claims. It is suggested that the first instance be amended to “[[the]] a respective interconnected device”.
For claim 9, the terms “the corresponding respective software application” lack sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. It is suggested it be amended to “[[the]] a corresponding respective software application”.
For claim 17, the terms “the computer-implemented method” lack sufficient antecedent basis in the claim (computer-implemented method was used in claim 1).
Dependent claims inherit rejections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 and 13-19 would be allowable if all 35 USC § 112 rejections are overcome.
Reasons for Allowability
For Independent claims 1, 11, and 13,
The claim is allowable because although measuring accuracy of machine learning/training is known in the art, no art was found to teach sending an alarm to a user when a specific training function varies away from a baseline by a threshold using regression.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Vasisht et al. (US 10,140,553 B1) teaches machine learning accuracy and regression but not the other limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAIR LEIBOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-3796. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at 571-272-0631. 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.
/YAIR LEIBOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights