DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to the correspondence filed on 06/17/26. Claims 1-16 are still pending and have been considered below.
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 1-16 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "…output a control signal for selectively extracting a part of the first analog signal or the first digital signal…" in lines 6-8. Examiner notes that upon further consideration in view of Applicant’s remarks filed on 06/17/26, the limitation renders the overall claim scope indefinite in that it is unclear as to exactly what the limitation should or should not encompass.
Specifically, this limitation could be reasonably interpreted as one or more of several possible options including: (1) “output a control signal for selectively extracting a part of the first analog signal” or “output the first digital signal”; (2) “output a control signal for selectively extracting a part of the first analog signal” or “output a control signal for selectively extracting a part of the first digital signal”; and/or (3) “output a control signal for selectively extracting a part of the first analog signal” or “output a control signal for the first digital signal”.
Examiner further notes that in view of the remarks, Applicant appears to understand this limitation to cover option #2 above; however, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that due to the phrasing of the claim language, it is not necessarily the only plausible interpretation.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "…outputting a control signal for selectively extracting a part of the first analog signal or the first digital signal…" in lines 4-5. Examiner notes that this limitation renders the overall claim scope indefinite for similar reasons as discussed above.
Specifically, this limitation could be reasonably interpreted as one or more of several possible options including: (1) “outputting a control signal for selectively extracting a part of the first analog signal” or “outputting the first digital signal”; (2) “outputting a control signal for selectively extracting a part of the first analog signal” or “outputting a control signal for selectively extracting a part of the first digital signal”; and/or (3) “outputting a control signal for selectively extracting a part of the first analog signal” or “outputting a control signal for the first digital signal”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lathrop et al. (2021/0406648).
Claim 1: Lathrop et al. discloses a signal processor comprising:
an input unit configured to receive a first analog signal [page 3, paragraph 0039];
an analog-digital converter configured to convert the first analog signal to a first digital signal [page 3, paragraph 0039];
a control circuit configured to detect the first analog signal or the first digital signal and, only when a result of the detection satisfies a predetermined condition, output a control signal for selectively extracting a part of the first analog signal or the first digital signal(control signals that configure interconnections) [page 3, paragraphs 0044-0045]; and
a reservoir unit configured to receive at least a part of the first digital signal and to operate in synchronization with at least a part of the control signal(components can be clocked and synchronous) [page 2, paragraph 0032 | page 3, paragraph 0040].
Claim 7: Lathrop et al. discloses the signal processor according to claim 1, wherein the input unit additionally receives a second analog signal [page 5, paragraphs 0059 & 0062].
Claim 12: Lathrop et al. discloses the signal processor according to claim 1, wherein the control circuit outputs the control signal when a change per unit time of the first analog signal or the first digital signal is equal to or greater than a set value [page 10, paragraphs 0098-0099].
Claim 16: Lathrop et al. discloses a signal processing method comprising:
detecting a first analog signal or a first digital signal to which the first analog signal is converted [page 3, paragraph 0039];
outputting a control signal for selectively extracting a part of the first analog signal or the first digital signal when the first analog signal or the first digital signal satisfies a setting condition [page 9, paragraph 0092]; and
performing inference through reservoir computing with a signal extracted using the control signal as an input [page 15, paragraph 0131-0132].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 8-11 and 13-15 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; and if rewritten to sufficiently overcome any applicable claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112, as set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect Claims 6, 8 and 13-15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to Claim 12 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Lathrop does not disclose or suggest any mechanism by which the sampling period, extraction timing, or gating of input signals is changed based on the content or temporal variation of the input signal itself) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant's arguments filed 06/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose selectively extracting a part of the first analog signal or the first digital signal, as claimed; in particular, Applicant appears to contend that none of the cited portions corresponds to extracting the part of the analog signal or digital signal.
Initially, Examiner notes that, as already discussed in the new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, the pending claim language does not appear to necessarily require the exact interpretation proposed by Applicant.
Examiner further notes that Lathrop et al. at the very least describes that one of the many functions the device can be controlled/configured to perform is converting an analog signal to a digital signal [page 3, paragraphs 0039 & 0044-0045].
Therefore, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the prior art does in fact disclose the allegedly deficient features since Lathrop et al. appears to reasonably demonstrate at least some amount of the analog signal being extracted in order to convert it to a digital signal; hence, describes outputting a control signal to configure the logic elements to perform at least this function of performing the analog to digital conversion.
Second, Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose the detection of when the first analog signal or the first digital signal satisfies a setting condition, as claimed; in particular, Applicant appears to contend that the prior art merely discloses an analog to digital conversion and does not further evaluate the converted analog or digital signal to satisfy a predetermined condition.
Examiner notes that the pending claim language merely appears to require satisfying a predetermined and/or setting “condition”, without further limiting any aspects of this claimed element to anything in particular; thus, would practically encompass any condition.
Therefore, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the prior art does in fact disclose the allegedly deficient features since Lathrop et al. would appear to reasonably establish the detection of various “conditions” while distributing and/or redistributing the interconnections of a reservoir in accordance with various characteristics such as an activity level parameter, and also further adjusting the interconnections to achieve a desired activity level parameter [pages 9-10, paragraphs 0092-0093].
Conclusion
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 EDWARD ZEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM 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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at (571) 270-3351. 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.
/EDWARD ZEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights