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 06/07/23. Claims 1-7 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 5-7 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.
Claims 5-7 recite various additional elements to Claim 1, which are phrased in a manner that renders it indefinite as to whether or not they should be treated as further limitations or as a “shortcut” independent claim directed to a different statutory class, so to speak.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Examiner notes that if these dependent claims are treated as further limitations of Claim 1, then they would be reasonably understood as directing the claims to two separate statutory classes of invention.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 5 and 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because if these claims are treated as independent claims, then they would be reasonably understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to at least encompass purely software embodiments; thus, are directed to software per se.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alakuijala et al. (2019/0251444).
Claim 1: Alakuijala et al. discloses a method for optimizing a network architecture of an artificial neural network comprising:
determining resource needs of the network architecture of the artificial neural network as a function of a target hardware(descriptive data of neural networks, evaluating the connections and/or edges) [page 2, paragraphs 0024-0025 & 0027 & 0031];
pruning the network architecture for obtaining a pruned network architecture, resource needs of the pruned network architecture being smaller than the resource needs of the network architecture [page 3, paragraphs 0037-0038]; and
adding at least one connection to the pruned network architecture to obtain an expanded network architecture(adding/supplementing neural network with additional edges) [page 3, paragraph 0039 | figure 3].
Claim 2: Alakuijala et al. discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising: training the network architecture as a function of training data after the determining the resource needs of the network architecture(retrain) [page 6, paragraph 0091].
Claim 4: Alakuijala et al. discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising: pruning the expanded network architecture in order to obtain an optimized network architecture(reduce resource requirements with minimal degradation) [page 2, paragraph 0023].
Claim 5: Alakuijala et al. discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein a computer program is configured to carry out the method [page 8, paragraph 0113].
Claim 6: Alakuijala et al. discloses the method according to claim 5, wherein the computer program is stored on a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium [page 8, paragraph 0113].
Claim 7: Alakuijala et al. discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein a device is configured to carry out the method [page 8, paragraph 0113].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yan et al. (2022/0172059).
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