CTNF 18/565,084 CTNF 92919 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. Preliminary Amendments This action is in response to preliminary amendments filed November 29 th , 2023. The amendments have been entered, and Claims 1-3 are currently pending and have been examined. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 2 recites a associative memory device comprising: processing circuitry , thus an article of manufacture, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter. However, the claim further recites the steps to convert [an] input sentence into a predicate logical formula (a mental process of judgement); to accumulate knowledge … in form of predicate logic (a mental process of judgement); to perform inference in accordance with a rule of the predicate logic (a mental process of judgement); to search knowledges accumulated by using the predicate logical formula (a mental process of judgement); to search by using the predicate logical formula as a search logical formula, and to acquire, as a candidate conditional logical formula, the predicate logical formula which is a search result (a mental process of judgement); to verify the search logical formula against the candidate using hypothetical reasoning, and to generate a plurality of hypothetical logical formulas based on the hypothetical reasoning (a mental process of judgement); to check on a symbolic basis whether each word constituting the plurality of hypothetical logical formulas is included in the knowledge database (a mental process of judgement); to select an operation of either a self-recall type associative memory or a mutual recall type associative memory (a mental process of judgement); to extract the hypothetical logical formula that is determined to be included in the knowledge data base on the symbolic basis from among the plurality of hypothetical logical formulas (a mental process of judgement); and to convert the output logical formula into an output sentence expressed in a natural language (a mental process of judgement). Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea consisting of converting an input sentence into logical formula, analyzing knowledge based on the logical formula to determine an output logical formula, and converting the output logical formula into a natural language sentence. The claim does not recite any additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because the additional elements consist of: a) insignificant extra-solution activity to store an input sentence , to store knowledges as a knowledge database , and to output the output sentences externally ¸ which do not make use of or rely upon the abstract idea, and thus by MPEP 2106.05(g) cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and of b) processing circuitry and of two signal conversion circuits acquired through learning with an echo state network with which to perform the abstract idea steps, which by MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) “using a computer or other machinery as a tool” cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, Claim 2 is directed towards an abstract idea of converting an input sentence into logical formula, analyzing knowledge based on the logical formula to determine an output logical formula, and converting the output logical formula into a natural language sentence. Finally, the additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept nor significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because the insignificant extra-solution activity is routine, conventional, and well-understood (by MPEP 2106.05(d), “storing and retrieving data in memory” & “transmitting and receiving data over a network”), because using a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the abstract idea is not an inventive concept (by MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) and because there is no nexus by which the additional elements in combination could provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible . Claim 3 , dependent upon Claim 2, recites an additional mental process step of the abstract idea to correct a word containing an error included in the input sentence . The claim further recites that this step is performed by a second associative memory circuit acquired through learning with the echo state network , which again is an additional element of using a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform an abstract idea step, which by MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor provides significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Rachez, “Probabilistic Language Modeling using Echo State Networks.” Regarding Claim 1, Rachez teaches an associative memory device comprising: processing circuitry (Rachez, pg. 6, 1 st paragraph, “since the fundamental operation in a neural network is matrix multiplication, several techniques (such as GPU computation) can be used to greatly reduce the time needed by the algorithm”) to store a fixed-length numeric vector as a memory pattern (Rachez, pg. 9, Section 2.1.1, “an input layer u ∈ R I ” denotes the input is a fixed-length numeric vector of length I, and must be stored by the processor to be used in the computation ); to store a numeric vector associated with the memory pattern as a recall pattern (Rachez, pg. 9, Section 2.1.1, “an output layer y ∈ R O ” or alternatively any column of pg. 13, final paragraph, “ Y ∈ R M x O ”) ; to acquire an associative memory circuit through learning by using an echo state network including an input layer, an intermediate layer, and an output layer … and to hold therein the associative memory circuit acquired through the learning (Rachez, pg. 10, Fig. 2.1, “The echo state network” & Section 3.1.2, “Learning” the echo state network ), values of all unit constituting the input layer being input in parallel to the intermediate layer, values output in parallel from the intermediate layer though neural network processing performing withing the intermediate layer being set as values of all unit constituting the output layer; the recall pattern being output in parallel from the associative memory circuit by inputting the memory pattern in parallel to the associative memory circuit (Rachez, pg. 10, Fig. 2.1 & pg. 9, Eq. (2.2) & Eq. (2.4)) . Conclusion Claims 2 and 3 have been examined, but have not been rejected with respect to prior art statutes. 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Rachez teaches input sentence expressed in a natural language with respect to echo state networks, but does not teach the remainder of Claim 2. Hinaut et al., “Corticostriatal response selection in sentence production: Insights from neural network simulation with reservoir computing,” cited by the applicant in the IDS of 11/129/203, teaches forming predicate logical forms in a system with natural languages input into an echo state/reservoir network, but does not teach any database search nor any correction of errors in the sentences. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M SMITH whose telephone number is (469)295-9104. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4pm Pacific. 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, Kakali Chaki can be reached at (571) 272-3719. 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. /BRIAN M SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2122 Application/Control Number: 18/565,084 Page 2 Art Unit: 2122 Application/Control Number: 18/565,084 Page 3 Art Unit: 2122 Application/Control Number: 18/565,084 Page 4 Art Unit: 2122 Application/Control Number: 18/565,084 Page 5 Art Unit: 2122 Application/Control Number: 18/565,084 Page 6 Art Unit: 2122 Application/Control Number: 18/565,084 Page 7 Art Unit: 2122
Prosecution Insights