DETAILED ACTION
This Office action for U.S. Patent Application No. 18/201,941 is responsive to the Request for Reconsideration filed 8 July 2025, in reply to the Non-Final Rejection of 9 April 2025.
Claims 1–4, 7, 9–13, and 15 are pending.
In the previous Office action, claims 1–4, 7, 12, 13, and 15 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over US 2021/0243429 A1 (“Lee”) in view of US 2022/0303527 A1 (“Fang”). Claim 9 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Lee in view of Fang and in view of US 2024/0129540 A1 (“Deng”). Claim 10 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Lee in view of Feng, Dang, and US 2022/0377324 A1 (“Yang”). Claim 11 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Lee in view of Fang, Deng, Yang, and US 2021/0136415 A1 (“Hashimoto”).
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the independent claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It appears that Applicant requires one of the two Lee or Feng references to by itself disclose the two final limitations concerning the weights. This is not correct. The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 U.S.P.Q. 871 (C.C.P.A. 1981). To reiterate, Lee was cited for the weights being determined in response to matrix operation-based prediction mode or not, and Fang was cited specifically for different settings of the weights based on different conditions. It is not needed for one reference to teach both that weights are determined based on matrix mode use, and the specific weights used. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 U.S.P.Q. 871 (C.C.P.A. 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 U.S.P.Q. 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1–4, 7, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0243429 A1 (“Lee”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0303527 A1 (“Fang”) for the reasons given in the 9 April 2025 Non-Final Rejection, restated and incorporated by reference.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Lee in view of Fang and in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2024/0129540 A1 (“Deng”) for the reasons given in the 9 April 2025 Non-Final Rejection, restated and incorporated by reference.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Lee in view of Fang, Deng, and in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0377324 A1 (“Yang”) for the reasons given in the 9 April 2025 Non-Final Rejection, restated and incorporated by reference.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Lee in view of Fang, Deng, Yang and US. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0136415 A1 (“Hashimoto”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following prior art was found using an Artificial Intelligence assisted search using an internal AI tool that uses the classification of the application under the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) system, as well as from the specification, including the claims and abstract, of the application as contextual information. The documents are ranked from most to least relevant. Where possible, English-language equivalents are given, and redundant results within the same patent families are eliminated. See “New Artificial Intelligence Functionality in PE2E Search”, 1504 OG 359 (15 November 2022), “Automated Search Pilot Program”, 90 F.R. 48,161 (8 October 2025).
US 2020/0204824 A1
KR 20110073263 A
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 David N Werner whose telephone number is (571)272-9662. The examiner can normally be reached M--F 7:30--4:00 Central.
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, Dave Czekaj can be reached at 571.272.7327. 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.
/David N Werner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights