DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 is(are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 6 recite computer-implemented functions including, among other limitations, “to shuffle the multiple first operation results to generate a first(second) SR output.”
Applicant(s) is/are respectfully reminded, for computer-implemented functional claims, “examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter.” MPEP § 2161.01(I).
As an initial matter, the Examiner notes that claim(s) 1 and 6 is(are) an originally-filed claim. However, originally-filed claim(s) 1 and 6 does(do) not disclose how the 1 and 6 themselves on how the “to shuffle the multiple first operation results to generate a first(second) SR output” is done, and so does not provide the necessary written description support for pending claim 1 and 6. Accord Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349 (indicating original claim language does not necessarily satisfy the written description requirement for the claimed subject matter). That is to say, originally-filed claim 1 and 6 itself(themselves) does(do) not provide an algorithm that performs the function “to shuffle the multiple first operation results to generate a first(second) SR output” in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe an algorithm that performs the function “to shuffle the multiple first operation results to generate a first(second) SR output” in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. For example, Applicant’s specification discloses “to shuffle the operation results FO_RESULT to generate an SR output image I_OUT1” and “arranged to shuffle the operation results SO_RESULT to generate an SR output image I_OUT2” Spec. [0017]. However, such disclosure is just a statement, is not an algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter.
Applicant is also reminded, “if the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made.” MPEP § 2161.01(I).
Therefore, because an algorithm for the function “to shuffle the multiple first operation results to generate a first(second) SR output” is not disclosed in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter, and in accordance with MPEP § 2161.01, claim 1 and 6 is rejected for lack of written description.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 7-10 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claims 1 and 6 (set forth directly above) and are rejected accordingly.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 1 and 6 recite, among other limitations, “configure multiple first basic blocks according to the input image for performing convolution operations, to generate multiple first operation results”. However, those limitations were not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to use the claimed invention without undue experimentation. The wand factors analysis is as following.
(A) The breadth of the claims.
The breath of the claim is all the blocks in image for performing convolution operations; as describe in Spec. [0015], “the basic blocks … may be convolution blocks, residualnetwork (ResNet) blocks, densely connected convolutional network (DenseNet) blocks, or other blocks based on convolutional neural network (CNN) architecture”. An ordinary skill in the art would have understood that there are enormous amount of different CNN architectures, and the breadth of the claims encompass ALL types of blocks in those different CNN architectures.
(B) The nature of the invention.
The claimed invention is built on top of the blocks mentioned above for further operations on the blocks.
(C) The state of the prior art.
N/A
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
An ordinary skill in the art would have understood that there are enormous amount of different CNN architectures, and experimentation of choosing blocks to carry out for further operations presents undue burden.
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
N/A
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
The inventor only listed that “in Spec. [0015], “the basic blocks … may be convolution blocks, residualnetwork (ResNet) blocks, densely connected convolutional network (DenseNet) blocks, or other blocks based on convolutional neural network (CNN) architecture”, which is insufficient to lessen the undue experimentations
(G) The existence of working examples; and
None provided.
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
Very high, since there are enormous amount of different CNN architectures, and the breadth of the claims encompass ALL types of blocks in those different CNN architectures.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 7-10 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claims 1 and 6 (set forth directly above) and are rejected accordingly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANGENG SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-3712. The examiner can normally be reached 8am to 5pm, EST, M-F.
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, Randolph Vincent 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.
JIANGENG SUN
Examiner
Art Unit 2661
/Jiangeng Sun/Examiner, Art Unit 2671