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 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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-5 & 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ramos et al., US PG Pub 2021/0090363 A1., (hereafter Ramos), [filing date Sep. 25, 2019].
Regarding claim 1 where it is disclosed by Ramos to have:
“An inferring device comprising: one or more memories [at least paragraphs 80-84 where it cites numerous memories, e.g., “[0084] System memory 728 can include computer system readable media in the form of volatile memory, such as random access memory (RAM) 730 and/or cache memory 732.”…]; and one or more processors [at least paragraph 81, “[0081] As shown in FIG. 7, computer node 712 is shown in the form of a general-purpose computing device. The components of computer node 712 may include, but are not limited to, one or more processors or processing units 716, a system memory 728, and a bus 718 that couples various system components including system memory 728 to one or more processors or processing units 716”] configured to: input input data including at least information regarding a first state in a differentiable physical model [at least paragraph 93, “[0093] Resource pooling: the provider's computing resources are pooled to serve multiple consumers using a multi-tenant model, with different physical and virtual resources dynamically assigned and reassigned according to demand.”] to calculate an inferred second state [at least paragraphs 65-70]; and infer [in at least paragraph 77, where it determines access control based on the forward and backwards propagation], based on a second state and the inferred second state, a parameter that transits from the first state to the second state [at least paragraphs 60-77 and figure 6].”
Regarding claim 2 where it is described in at least paragraphs 61-77, by Ramos to have, “the input data includes information regarding a parameter.”
Regarding claim 3 where it is disclosed by Ramos in at least paragraphs 61-77 to have, “the one or more processors are configured to perform error backward propagation on the differentiable physical model by using an error between the second state and the inferred second state, to infer the parameter that transits from the first state to the second state.”
Regarding claim 4 where it is disclosed by Ramos in at least paragraphs 61-77 to have, “the one or more processors are configured to execute the error backward propagation and update the parameter by using a gradient based on the differentiable physical model, to infer the parameter that transits from the first state to the second state.”
Regarding claim 5 where it is disclosed by Ramos in at least paragraphs 22-24 to have, “the one or more processors are configured to: store an interim process of arithmetic operation in the one or more memories; and execute the error backward propagation by using the stored interim process.”
Regarding claim 17 which is the corresponding method claim for system claim 1 and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 18 which is the corresponding method claim for system claim 2 and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 19 which is the corresponding method claim for system claim 3 and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 20 which is the corresponding computer readable product claim for system claim 1 and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6 & 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramos and further in view of Strauss et al., US PG Pub 2020/0202223 A1., (hereafter Strauss) [filing date of Dec. 21, 2018].
Regarding claim 6 where all the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed by Ramos as described above. Where it is not specifically disclosed by Ramos to have, “the differentiable physical model is a model generated based on a method of Neural ODE (Ordinary Differential Equations).”
Strauss is directed to a neural network being used with DSD circuits. Where in at least paragraph 36 it is disclosed by Strauss to have their system teach using, “the differentiable physical model is a model generated based on a method of Neural ODE (Ordinary Differential Equations).”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Ramos by the teachings of Strauss where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of neural networks. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have modified Ramos by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, as taught by Strauss. Where in this instance where Ramos does not specifically have their system use Neural ODE to help determine how to quickly and efficiently reduce error from the initial collection of data to be able to better produce accurate results using the Neural network algorithm.
Regarding claim 10 where all the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed by Ramos as described above. Where it is not specifically disclosed by Ramos to have, “the differentiable physical model is a differential equation solver that determines a solution of a physical system represented by a differential equation.”
Strauss is directed to a neural network being used with DSD circuits. Where in at least paragraph 36 it is disclosed by Strauss to have their system teach using, “the differentiable physical model is a differential equation solver that determines a solution of a physical system represented by a differential equation.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Ramos by the teachings of Strauss where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of neural networks. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have modified Ramos by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, as taught by Strauss. Where in this instance where Ramos does not specifically have their system use Neural ODE to help determine how to quickly and efficiently reduce error from the initial collection of data to be able to better produce accurate results using the Neural network algorithm.
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 11-16 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.
Regarding claims 11-16 where applicant claims in claim 11 to have, “…the parameter includes information regarding at least one of a control of the control target device, or environment of the control target device.” It is unclear as to what applicant is trying to claim as no specific devices or “control target devices” have been claimed. The scope of the claim is indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained, thus the claim will not be treated on the merits. Regarding claim 12 where applicant claims, “…the state of control target device includes information regarding substance existing inside the control target device.” What specific device is this coming from? Applicant has not provided any specifics as to what device the information is being sent to and what specific information is being used. Hence, the scope of the claim is indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained, thus the claim will not be treated on the merits. Regarding claim 13 where applicant claims, “…the information regarding substance includes information regarding at least one of amount of the substance, or internal energy of the substance.” What specific device is this coming from? Applicant has not provided any specifics as to what device the information is being sent to and what specific information is being used. Hence, the scope of the claim is indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained, thus the claim will not be treated on the merits. Regarding claim 14 where applicant claims, “…the parameter includes information regarding at least one of a temperature, a humidity, a pressure, a voltage, a current, or concentration of substance.” What specific device is this coming from? Applicant has not provided any specifics as to what device the information is being sent to and by what, no devices have been claimed at all. Hence, the scope of the claim is indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained, thus the claim will not be treated on the merits. Regarding claim 15 where applicant claims, “…the parameter includes information regarding at least one of a volume, a capacity, or a shape of the control target device.” What specific device is this coming from? Applicant has not provided any specifics as to what device the information is being sent to and by what, no devices have been claimed at all. Hence, the scope of the claim is indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained, thus the claim will not be treated on the merits. Regarding claim 16 which depends from claim 11 which has been rejected under 112th as indicated above and does not address the problems with claim 11 above and thus is also rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 11 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHAVESH V AMIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3255. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur, 8-6:30, EST.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. 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.
BHAVESH V. AMIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/BHAVESH V AMIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657