DETAILED ACTION
1. 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 application filed 12/21/2022.
Claims 1-30 are presenting for examination. Claims 1, 13, 25, and 30 are independent Claims.
Drawings
2. The drawings filed 12/21/2022 are accepted for examination purposes.
Specification
3. The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
4. 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 for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that 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 use the word “means,” and 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) is/are: “means for generating...”, “means for performing…”, and “means for combining...” in claims 25-29; “means for updating...” in claim 28; and “means for concurrently performing…” in claim 29.
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.
A review of the specification shows that there does not appear to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the named limitations.
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.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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 25-29 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As given above, the named limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function, rendering these limitations indefinite.
If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th Paragraph applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to add structure, material or acts that are sufficient to perform the claimed function; or
(b) Present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2181.
If Applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts 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
6. 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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Khaitan et al. (US 20220207345).
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
As to Claim 1:
Khaitan teaches a computer-implemented method ([0004]), comprising:
generating a first feature map for a first set of streaming data using a machine learning model, wherein: the first set of streaming data comprises a first portion of a total set of data to be processed through the machine learning model (Abstract and [0047-0049]), and generating the first feature map comprises: for each respective item in the first set of streaming data, performing one or more operations on the respective item; and combining results of the one or more operations performed for each respective item in the first set of streaming data into the first feature map ([0054-0055] and [0065-0067]);
generating a second feature map for a second set of streaming data using the machine learning model, the second set of streaming data comprising a second portion of the total set of data and partially overlapping with the first set of streaming data (Abstract, [0047-0049], and [0051]); and
generating a result of processing the total set of data through the machine learning model based at least on a combination of the first feature map and the second feature map ([0048], [0054-0055], and [0065-0067]).
As to Claim 2:
Khaitan teaches the second set of streaming data comprises a portion of the first set of streaming data ([0047-0048]).
As to Claim 3:
Khaitan teaches generating the result of processing the total set of data comprises combining an element in the first feature map with a corresponding element in the second feature map into a combined result for an input included in both the first set of streaming data and the second set of streaming data ([0048-0049] and [0065]).
As to Claim 4:
Khaitan teaches the results of the one or more operations performed for each respective item in the first set of streaming data correspond to results of a larger single operation performed on the first set of streaming data ([0055] and [0057-0058]).
As to Claim 5:
Khaitan teaches each operation of the one or more operations comprises one or more convolutions performed via a 2D convolution filter ([0047-0048]).
As to Claim 6:
Khaitan teaches each operation of the one or more operations comprises one or more convolutions performed via a convolution filter having dimensions specified via one or more hyperparameters ([0048-0049] and [0066-0067]).
As to Claim 7:
Khaitan teaches combining the results of the one or more operations performed for each respective item in the first set of streaming data comprises: appending, to a result for a first item in the first set of streaming data, a result for a second item in the first set of streaming data; and updating the result for the first item based on the result for the second item ([0040-0041]).
As to Claim 8:
Khaitan teaches the first set of streaming data and the second set of streaming data have a same size ([0054-0055]).
As to Claim 9:
Khaitan teaches a size of the first set of streaming data is based on a size of one or more convolutional layers of the machine learning model ([0054-0055] and [0065]).
As to Claim 10:
Khaitan teaches performing the one or more operations comprises concurrently performing the one or more operations on different respective items in the first set of streaming data ([0090-0093]).
As to Claim 11:
Khaitan teaches the one or more operations comprise one or more pooling operations ([0056]).
As to Claim 12:
Khaitan teaches the one or more operations comprise one or more linear operations ([0040-0041).
As to Claims 13-24:
Refer to the discussion of Claims 1-12 above, respectively, for rejections. Claims 13-24 are the same as Claims 1-12, except Claims 13-24 are system Claims and Claims 1-12 are method Claims.
As to Claims 25-29:
Refer to the discussion of Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 10 above, respectively, for rejections. Claims 25-29 are the same as Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 10, except Claims 25-29 are system Claims and Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 10 are method Claims.
As to Claim 30:
Refer to the discussion of Claim 1 above for rejection. Claim 30 is the same as Claim 1, except Claim 30 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium Claim and claim 1 is a method Claim.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record, listed on PTO 892 provided to Applicant is considered to have relevancy to the claimed invention. Applicant should review each identified reference carefully before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the prior art.
Contact information
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MAIKHANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-4093. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:00 am – 5:30 pm). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TAMARA KYLE can be reached at (571)272-4241.
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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MAIKHANH NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144