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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the applicant's communication filed on 04/14/2023. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-19 filed on 04/14/2023 are currently pending in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information Disclosure statement (IDS) form PTO-1449, filed on 04/14/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosed therein was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 04/14/2023 have been reviewed by Examiner and they are acceptable.
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”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited 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 that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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: “first operation unit” and “second operation unit” in claim 1, 3, 4, 8 and “sub operation unit” in claims 4, 5, 6.
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 does not reveal sufficient disclosure of the structure, material , or acts for performing the function recited in the claim limitations invoking 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Accordingly, Claims 1, 2, 8, 16, and 17 are further analyzed and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph in the following section.
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
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.
Claim elements “first operation unit”, “second operation units” , and “sub operation unit”, in claims 1-10 are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. Accordingly, Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
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.
The remaining dependent claims have been analyzed and are rejected for failing to cure the deficiencies noted above.
Claim 1-19 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Regarding claim 1, limitation “being respectively”, in line 3, is unclear, it is not clear what is the order of classification information or were the information has been introduced before?
Limitation “the plurality of instantiated first operation units being configured to densify a plurality of sub data included in input data into a plurality of sub densified data” the whole paragraph is not clear, what is the relationship between input data, classification information, sub data and instantiated first operation units? The order of the limitations in independent claims are not clear even in the claim 11, it is not clear what is the first and second operation units and how they are related to input data. Please clarify.
Regarding claim 2, the structural relationships of elements are not clear, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. Does the input divided by type first or what is the relation between sub data or the first and second type of data?
Regarding claim 3, “translate the plurality of sub densified data” is unclear, is the translate same as merging the data in claim 1 or not? The order of the claim steps are not clear!
The remaining dependent claims have been analyzed and are rejected for failing to cure the deficiencies noted above and therefore inherit 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), second paragraph issues of the independent claims.
The indefiniteness issues and errors present in the claims preclude examiner from performing reasonable prior art search.
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 1-19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims 1 and 11 recite receiving classification information; instantiating a plurality of first operation units according to the classification information; instantiating a second operation unit according to the classification information; densifying a plurality of sub data included in input data into a plurality of sub densified data respectively by means of the plurality of instantiated first operation units; and merging the plurality of sub densified data into densified data by means of the instantiated second operation unit.
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the instant claims are directed to an apparatus, a method, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium, all among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A — Prong 1:
With regard to Step 2A — Prong 1, for example in method Claim 11, the limitations “receiving classification information; instantiating a plurality of first operation units according to the classification information; instantiating a second operation unit according to the classification information; densifying a plurality of sub data included in input data into a plurality of sub densified data respectively by means of the plurality of instantiated first operation units; and merging the plurality of sub densified data into densified data by means of the instantiated second operation unit”, as recited, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a mathematical relationship. Nothing in the claim steps preclude the limitations from being performed as a mathematical relationship. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonably interpretation covers performance of the limitation as a mathematical relationship, then it falls within the "Mathematical concept" grouping of the abstract idea, which include concepts performed in mathematical relationship line classifying, densifying, and merging data. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A — Prong 2:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase “integration into a practical application’ to require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim
to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, the additional elements in the claims do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite any additional elements . Therefore, independent Claims 1 and 11 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Because the claims fail under Step 2A, the claims are further evaluated under Step 2B. The claims herein do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, The claim is not patent eligible.
Further, with regard to dependent Claims 2-10, 12-19 viewed individually, these additional elements are under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind and do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAGHAYEGH AZIMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1459. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30-6:30.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at (571)272-8243. 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.
/SHAGHAYEGH AZIMA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2671