DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
Claims 2-21 are pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
The Double Patenting rejection has been withdrawn based on applicant’s amendment.
The 35 USC 103 rejection has been withdrawn based on applicant’s amendment.
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 11-21 and 17-21 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 11 recites (emphasis added):
“determine, based on at least one of the mathematical processing memory and the mathematical processor, that at least one resource requirement, to be expended to perform the one or more operations on the matrix, exceeds a threshold; and
generate a converted matrix, wherein the at least one resource requirement, to be expended to perform the one or more operations on the converted matrix, does not exceed the threshold.”
It is unclear how a resource requirement can be expended. The specification states “one or more other computer resources that may be expended while performing the operation” which is in contradiction to expending a resource requirement. Hence, the claims are indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention. The examiner recommends amending claim 11 to recite:
“determine, based on at least one of the mathematical processing memory and the mathematical processor, that at least one resource requirement, for at least one resource to be expended to perform the one or more operations on the matrix, exceeds a threshold; and
generate a converted matrix, wherein the at least one resource requirement, for the at least one resource to be expended to perform the one or more operations on the converted matrix, does not exceed the threshold.”
Claims 12-16 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 11.
Claims 18-21 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record taken alone or in combination fails to teach and/or fairly suggest determining that at least one resource requirement, for at least one resource to be expended to perform the one or more operations on the matrix, exceeds a threshold; and generating a converted matrix, wherein the at least one resource requirement, for the at least one resource to be expended to perform the one or more operations on the converted matrix, does not exceed the threshold, in combination with other recited limitations in claim 2.
Claims 3-10 are allowed by virtue of their dependency.
Claims 11-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended, as suggested by the examiner, to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
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 FARLEY J ABAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3425. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30 AM - 7 PM.
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, Idriss Alrobaye can be reached at (571) 270-1023. 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.
/Farley Abad/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2181
Prosecution Insights