CTNF 18/413,223 CTNF 91069 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 The action is in response to claims dated 1/16/2024. Claims pending in the case: 1-10 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. 07-30-06 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: “an acquisition unit that…”, “generation unit that…”, “a determination unit…”, “an output control unit that”, in claims 1 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. All claims dependent on the claims identified above are also interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) due to the virtue of their respective direct and indirect dependencies. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. A review of the specification shows that the specification lacks corresponding structure or an algorithm to perform at least some of the specific functions in the claim. The attempt to interpret the claimed limitations under 112(f) have failed. Hence please refer to the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below. The applicant is thus requested to provide explanation of the corresponding structure. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA 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. 07-31-01 AIA Claim s 1-7 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of “an acquisition unit that…”, “generation unit that…”, “a determination unit…”, “an output control unit that”. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention . 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 AIA Claim (s) 1-7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. 07-34-23 Claim limitation “an acquisition unit that…”, “generation unit that…”, “a determination unit…”, “an output control unit 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 performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 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; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, 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 and clearly links them to the function 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. All claims dependent on this/these claim(s) are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to the virtue of their respective direct and indirect dependencies. 07-34-01 AIA Claim (s) 1-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim(s) 1, 8-9 in the relevant part read: “allowable distance information relating to an allowable distance indicating a degree of change in an architecture allowed”. Based on the claim language, it is unclear what is to be considered as “a degree change in an architecture” and therefore is not clear what is being claimed as “distance information”. As such, a person of reasonable skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the invention. For the purpose of examination, a reasonable interpretation was not possible and this limitation has been mapped to allowable parameter values. All claims dependent on this/these claim(s) are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to the virtue of their respective direct and indirect dependencies. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-5, 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 20250156715) . Regarding Claim 1, Huang teaches, A search space limitation apparatus comprising: an acquisition unit that acquires first neural network information relating to a first neural network (Huang: [14]: “defining, by a computing system comprising one or more computing devices, a plurality of searchable parameters that control an architecture of a neural network”), first search space information relating to a first search space which is a range for searching for an architecture of a second neural network based on the first neural network (Huang: [71]: acceptable range for searchable parameters), and allowable distance information relating to an allowable distance indicating a degree of change in an architecture allowed from an architecture of the first neural network in the first search space (Huang: [71]: acceptable values or range (allowable distance); [85]: acceptable thresholds (degree of change from expectation)); a generation unit that generates neural network architecture information relating to the architecture of the first neural network, based on the first neural network information (Huang: [76, 100]: generate network architecture); a determination unit that determines a second search space which is a range, in the first search space, for searching for the architecture of the second neural network, based on the neural network architecture information, the first search space information and the allowable distance information (Huang: Fig. 1A, [71, 73, 83]: update search at each iteration); and an output control unit that outputs second search space information relating to the second search space to an output device (Huang: Fig. 1A, [72-73]: output search space to controller device); The limitations as claimed does not add specifics on “allowable distance”. The examiner finds that the allowable range taught in Huan reads on the limitations as claimed. Thus the claimed limitations are found to be obvious over the teachings in Huang. Regarding claim 2, Huang teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, wherein the generation unit generates neural network architecture information including parameters representing the architecture of the first neural network (Huang: [14, 71]: [14]: “defining, by a computing system comprising one or more computing devices, a plurality of searchable parameters that control an architecture of a neural network”), and the determination unit determines the second search space, based on the allowable distance from the parameters representing the architecture of the first neural network with respect to respective parameters representing the first search space (Huang: Fig. 1A, [71, 73, 83]: update search space). Regarding claim 3, Huang teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, wherein the determination unit determines the second search space, based on whether there is a change in a type of a possible value of each or any of the parameters representing the architecture of the first neural network with respect to parameters representing the first search space (Huang: Fig. 1A, [71, 73, 83]: searchable parameters). Regarding claim 4, Huang teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, wherein the determination unit weights the allowable distance of parameters representing the architecture of the first neural network with respect to respective parameters representing the first search space (Huang: Fig. 1A, [71, 73, 83]: based on allowable ranges of parameter values). Regarding claim 5, Huang teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, wherein the determination unit applies the same allowable distance or different allowable distances to the parameters representing the architecture of the first neural network with respect to respective parameters representing the first search space, based on the allowable distance information (Huang: Fig. 1A, [71, 73, 83]: based on allowable ranges of parameter values). Regarding claim 7, Huang teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, wherein the determination unit determines the second search space, based on the number of parameters that are changed among parameters representing the architecture of the first neural network with respect to respective parameters representing the first search space (Huang: Fig. 1A, [71, 73, 83]: based on parameters being in the allowable ranges of parameter values). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to use a suitable metric to determine an acceptable tolerance based on the number of parameters that have changed. Regarding Claim(s) 8 and 9 , this/these claim(s) is/are similar in scope as claim(s) 1. Therefore, this/these claim(s) is/are rejected under the same rationale. Regarding Claim(s) 10 , this/these claim(s) is/are similar in scope as claim(s) 2. Therefore, this/these claim(s) is/are rejected under the same rationale. Claim Rejections using prior art Regarding claims 6, no prior art was found as the limitation is not clear and a reasonable interpretation for the purpose of conducting a search was not possible. Please refer to the 112b rejection of the parent claim . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in attached 892 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDRITA BRAHMACHARI whose telephone number is (571)272-9735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11 am to 8 pm 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, Tamara Kyle can be reached at 571 272 4241. 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. /Mandrita Brahmachari/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144 Application/Control Number: 18/413,223 Page 2 Art Unit: 2144 Application/Control Number: 18/413,223 Page 3 Art Unit: 2144 Application/Control Number: 18/413,223 Page 4 Art Unit: 2144 Application/Control Number: 18/413,223 Page 5 Art Unit: 2144 Application/Control Number: 18/413,223 Page 6 Art Unit: 2144 Application/Control Number: 18/413,223 Page 7 Art Unit: 2144 Application/Control Number: 18/413,223 Page 8 Art Unit: 2144 Application/Control Number: 18/413,223 Page 10 Art Unit: 2144 Application/Control Number: 18/413,223 Page 11 Art Unit: 2144 Application/Control Number: 18/413,223 Page 12 Art Unit: 2144
Prosecution Insights