Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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.
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:
“a script extractor/executor” in claims 1 and 5 – The Specification describes the script extractor/executor as a program, i.e. software, which is not a corresponding structure under 35 USC 112(f).
“an output unit” in claim 1 – The output unit has no structure defined in the Specification.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 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 5 do not have supporting structure from the Specification for the “script extractor/executor” as required under 35 USC 112(f). Therefore, the “script extractor/executor” lacks written description.
Claim 1 does not have supporting structure from the Specification for the “output unit” as required under 35 USC 112(f). Therefore, the “output unit” lacks written description.
Claims 2-4 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim 6 inherits the deficiencies of claim 5.
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 1-6 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.
Claims 1 and 5 do not have supporting structure from the Specification for the “script extractor/executor” as required under 35 USC 112(f). Therefore, it is unclear what constitutes the “script extractor/executor”.
Claim 1 does not have supporting structure from the Specification for the “output unit” as required under 35 USC 112(f). Therefore, it is unclear what constitutes the output unit.
Regarding claim 1, “receiving input 1…and input 2” renders the claim indefinite because the inputs lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, “basic materials” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what constitutes “basic” materials for learning, i.e. it is unclear what the scope of the term is.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, “key contents” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “key” indicates “important” or if it refers to a “key” in the sense of a dictionary key. Furthermore, in the former, it is unclear what the scope of “key” contents for learning is.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, “with both axes for keywords and key information” renders the claim indefinite because the axes lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 1, “both axes for keywords and key information, respectively” renders the claim indefinite because “both” does not refer to an ordered list of two items and “respectively” does refer to an ordered list, i.e. it is unclear what “respectively” is assigning.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, “the context of knowledge” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, “the same area as the 2D information table” renders the claim indefinite because the 2D information table does not inherently have an area, because it is a table, and therefore “the same area” lacks antecedent basis and is unclear by virtue of “area” being ill-defined for a table.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of “generates” in line 19 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the AI is being recited as performing the generating or if some other structure does the generating.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, “that operating the 2D pseudo-linear transformation table” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the 2D pseudo-linear transformation table is doing.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, “derives…as the deep truth values” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the information of the coordinates is the deep truth value, the coordinates whose vectors do not change are the deep truth values, or if the claim is stating that the information is derived “as” the deep truth values in the sense that it is derived in the same manner.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, “the context knowledge formed by linking the deep truth values of each of the 1D linear channels for multiple generations” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, “as a number of iterations of operations” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what “operations” refers to.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, “reacts to operation transformations” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what “operation transformations” refers to.
Regarding claims 2 and 6, “any one of directional rotation, inversion, and symmetry around a central point” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if antecedence is claimed back to the same limitations in claims 1 and 5, respectively.
Claims 2-4 and 6 are indefinite by virtue of dependency on claims 1 and 5, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claims 2-4 and 6 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art does not anticipate or render obvious the construction of the 2D pseudo-linear transformation table from the 2D information table, then generating a 2D unique characteristic table which is subsequently converted into a 1D linear channels, where as the number of iterations increases, the 2D pseudo-linear transformation table reacts to transformations based on rotation, inversion, or symmetry around a central point of claims 1 and 5.
Takeda (WO2016147276A1) teaches a similar technique based on the generation of a term frequency matrix, but lacks the transformations of claims 1 and 5. The prior art fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness for arriving at the claimed invention from Takeda.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCHYLER S SANKS whose telephone number is (571)272-6125. The examiner can normally be reached 06:30 - 15:30 Central Time, 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, Michael Huntley can be reached at (303) 297-4307. 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.
/SCHYLER S SANKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2129
Prosecution Insights