The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 19 December 2023. THIS ACTION IS NON-FINAL.
Status of Claims
Claims 32-51 are pending.
Claims 1-31 are cancelled.
Claims 32 and 42 includes limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because it uses a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Claims 32-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 32-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite.
There is no art rejection for claims 32-51.
Claim Interpretation
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.
In claims 32 and 42, claim limitations "attention blocks or circuits", "concatenation block or circuit”, “summation block or circuit”, have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. The specification does not provide descriptions of the structure of these elements.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim(s) limitations treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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).
In claims 32 and 42, the claim include limitation “dense split attention block or circuit, which is not a commonly recognized item. It is construed to be the specific structure shown in FIG.16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
112(b) Rejection
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.
A claim is indefinite if, when read in light of the specification, it fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 110 USPQ.2d 1688, U.S. Supreme Court (2014).
Claims 32-51 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 32 and 42, "attention blocks or circuits", "concatenation block or circuit”, “summation block or circuit”, the specification does not provide sufficient structural / procedural description to determine the scope of these limitations, the claims are therefore indefinite.
Regarding claims 33-41 / 43-51, which depend on above rejected claim 32 / 42, are rejected for the same reason.
35 U.S.C. 112(a) Rejections
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.
Claims 32-51 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 32 and 42, "attention blocks or circuits", "concatenation block or circuit”, “summation block or circuit””, the specification does not provide sufficient structural / procedural description for these limitations. The claims are therefore rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding claims 33-41 / 43-51, which depend on above rejected claim 32 / 42, are rejected for the same reason.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32-51 include allowable subject matter since when reading the claims in light of the specification, as per, MPEP §2111.01 or Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Industries Inc., 199F.3d 1295, 1301, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1069, 1069 (Fed.Cir. 1999), none of the references of record alone or in combination disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in claims 32-51.
In interpreting the claims, in light of the specification filed on 19 December 2023, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior arts of record.
Regarding the amended independent claims, the primary reason for the allowance is the inclusion of the specific process / structure of multiple layer neural networks with multiple processing block or circuits including a specific dense split attention block or circuit structure.
None of the cited prior art references, singly or in combination, fully teaches all limitations of independent claims 32 and 42.
Regarding the dependent claims, which include all the limitations of the independent claims, are also allowed.
The followings are references close to the invention claimed:
Tran et al., US-PGPUB NO.20220004860A1 [hereafter Wagner] show neural network structure with attention circuit. However Tran does not teach the specific process / structure of multiple layer neural networks with multiple processing block or circuits including a specific dense split attention block or circuit structure.
Sukumar et al., US-PGPUB NO.20210358496A1 [hereafter Sukumar] show neural network structure with summation block. However Sukumar does not teach the specific process / structure of multiple layer neural networks with multiple processing block or circuits including a specific dense split attention block or circuit structure.
Wagner et al., US-PGPUB NO.20210303991A1 [hereafter Wagner] show multi-layer neural network with summation block. However Wagner does not teach the specific process / structure of multiple layer neural networks with multiple processing block or circuits including a specific dense split attention block or circuit structure.
Bello et al., “Attention augmented convolution al networks”, ICCV 2019 [hereafter Bello] show convolutional network with attention component. However Bello does not teach the specific process / structure of multiple layer neural networks with multiple processing block or circuits including a specific dense split attention block or circuit structure.
Gu et al., “CA-Net: Comprehensive attention convolutional neural networks for explainable medical image segmentation”, IEEE Transactions on medical imaging, Vol.40, No.2, Feb.2021 [hereafter Gu] show attention convolutional neural networks for medical image processing. However Gu does not teach the specific process / structure of multiple layer neural networks with multiple processing block or circuits including a specific dense split attention block or circuit structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSU-CHANG LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3567. The fax number is 571-273-3567.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Omar Fernandez Rivas, can be reached 571-272-2589.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TSU-CHANG LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights