DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Introduction
This application is being examined by Examiner Kathleen Broughton. According to our records you are a pro se applicant (i.e. no legal representation) and may not be familiar with the patent prosecution process and may have many questions regarding the patent prosecution process. I want you to know that I look forward to working with you on this application and am here to provide help and answers. After reviewing this office action, please do not hesitate to contact me via telephone if you have any questions or concerns. My telephone number is 571-270-7380. If you cannot reach me in person, please leave a voicemail and I will try to return your call within 24 hours.
Some sections of this office action may include an “Examiner’s Notes/Comments” section. This section will provide further clarification of the legal concepts without complicated legal jargon and/or suggestions for overcoming the issues presented in the section. Furthermore, as suggested above, please call me if you need any further clarification regarding any topic in this office action.
Priority
This application makes reference to or appears to claim subject matter disclosed in Application No. US Patent application 18/309,831, filed 05/01/2023. If applicant desires to claim the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c) or 386(c), the instant application must contain, or be amended to contain, a specific reference to the prior-filed application in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78. If the application was filed before September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title or in an application data sheet (ADS) in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76; if the application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in an ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76. For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), the reference must include the relationship (i.e., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part) of the applications.
If the instant application is a utility or plant application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), the specific reference must be submitted during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior application. If the application is a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371, the specific reference must be submitted during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the date on which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f), four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage, or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior application. See 37 CFR 1.78(a)(4) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78(d)(3) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c). This time period is not extendable and a failure to submit the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and/or 120, where applicable, within this time period is considered a waiver of any benefit of such prior application(s) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), and 386(c). A benefit claim filed after the required time period may be accepted if it is accompanied by a grantable petition to accept an unintentionally delayed benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) (see 37 CFR 1.78(c)) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) (see 37 CFR 1.78(e)). The petition must be accompanied by (1) the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 or 119(e) and by 37 CFR 1.78 to the prior application (unless previously submitted), (2) the applicable petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) or (2), and (3) a statement that the entire delay between the date the benefit claim was due under 37 CFR 1.78 and the date the claim was filed was unintentional. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional. The petition should be addressed to: Mail Stop Petition, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.
If the reference to the prior application was previously submitted within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.78 but was not included in the location in the application required by the rule (e.g., if the reference was submitted in an oath or declaration or the application transmittal letter), and the information concerning the benefit claim was recognized by the Office as shown by its inclusion on the first filing receipt, the petition under 37 CFR 1.78 and the petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) or (2) are not required. Applicant is still required to submit the reference in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78 by filing an ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76 with the reference (or, if the application was filed before September 16, 2012, by filing either an amendment to the first sentence(s) of the specification or an ADS in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76). See MPEP § 211.02.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Figure 3: element 312; Figure 6: element 622, 624; Figure 7: element 862, 864 (may also be a typographical error on the drawing and meant as 764, 766, respectively, specification ¶ [0137]). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because Figure 9 is labeled as "FIGURE 8" but this is a clear typographical oversight. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
For more information on how to properly amend the drawings please see MPEP § 714(II)(D) -- https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s714.html -- and the link to the example amendment at the end of the office action. Additionally, if additional assistance is required, please contact the Examiner for assistance in amending the drawings.
Specification
The attempt to incorporate subject matter into this application by reference to paragraph [0001] is ineffective because the priority was not properly incorporated in the ADS.
A preliminary examination of this application reveals that it includes terminology which is so different from that which is generally accepted in the art to which this invention pertains that a proper search of the prior art cannot be made. For example: Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15-22 each recite the limitation “parent patent” or “parent application" in the preamble, with remaining claims reciting "present continuation application." However, as discussed above in the priority section, no application was properly incorporated by reference. Furthermore, independent claims of the current application must be recited in their entirety in the submitted claims. Likewise, dependent claims of the current application must refer back to the independent claim of the same application. See MPEP § 608.01(n), 2111.
Applicant is required to provide a clarification of these matters or correlation with art-accepted terminology so that a proper comparison with the prior art can be made. Applicant should be careful not to introduce any new matter into the disclosure (i.e., matter which is not supported by the disclosure as originally filed).
Additional pro se resources may be available with the Pro Se Assistance Program - Filing a patent application on your own | USPTO.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0001] is missing a period at the end.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-22 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, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15-22 each recite the limitation “parent patent” or “parent application” in the preamble and recite different “parent patent” or “parent application” claims to be dependent upon. However, claim language cannot refer to the “parent patent” or “parent application” because the incorporation by reference is with respect to the specification and drawings, not the claims. Although it appears that the “parent patent” is application 18/309,831, the formal claim structure for an independent claim does not refer to another patent application but rather recites the entire independent claim limitation in the application in which the applicant seeks a patent and dependent claims refer to the entire recited independent claim of the current application. Furthermore, the applicant has not properly claimed priority to the given “parent patent” or “parent application” The applicant should amend the designated independent claim in the current application (interpreted as claim 1 (method) and claim 8 (non-transitory computer readable medium), and include a proper preamble, transition phrase, and body of claim limitations. See also MPEP § 608.01(n), 2111.03.
Claims 2, 3 of the current application are rejected as dependent on claim 1 of the current application.
Claims 6, 7 of the current application are rejected as dependent on claim 5 of the current application.
Claim 9, 10 of the current application are rejected as dependent on claim 8 of the current application.
Claim 13, 14 of the current application are rejected as dependent on claim 12 of the current application.
Examiner’s Notes/Comments
Examiner notes a preliminary review of prior art was performed based on the applicant’s submitted Specification – 03/20/2024 including claim limitations. The current state of the applicant’s entire claim language is not clear based on unconventional language (see 35 USC § 112(b) rejection above). At this time, no claim rejections based on prior art due to these deficiencies. However, relevant preliminary identified art is discussed below. An updated search will be made based on submitted claim amendments that conform to current US practices before a determination will be reached regarding the scope of the claims, the definiteness of the claim language and determining if prior art teaches on the given claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gold (Organic Convolutional Model of Ventral Visual Path Reproduces Curvature Selective Shape Tuning Found in Area V4) is from the same applicant and teaches an orderly convergence of neuronal selectivities for topographically organized visual space including analysis of the intensity of the line edges in the network. The figures of this publication show similar renderings of the figures disclosed in the current application.
Chen et al (Orientation Detection System Based on Edge-Orientation Selective Neurons) teach an orientation detection system based on edge-orientation selective neurons including weight of different pixels in the receptive field of a single neuron and sum pooling for a given layer.
Gold (US 2020/0082258, application 16/125818) claims a method and system for configuring an artificial neural network for identifying topography positions including determining a weight matrix and tilting the weight matrix for an input transformation.
Imam et al (US 2018/0174041) teach a neuromorphic computing device with a spiked neural network where the neurons form a topography and the neuron synapse have a configurable weight value.
When responding to this action, please keep the following in mind:
Pay close attention to any time periods for response and fees set forth in this action. Fees and time periods cannot be waived.
All formal replies to Office Actions must be submitted via mail, fax or EFS web. Formal replies cannot be submitted via e-mail. Please see the following webpage for a summary of how to properly submit a response -- https://www.uspto.gov/patents-maintaining-patent/responding-office-actions
Sign all submissions. A proper signature can be either a handwritten signature or an electronic signature. Please note that a proper electronic signature requires Applicant's name within forward slashes (ex. /John T. Smith/) AND a printed name below it. If more than one inventor, all inventors must sign unless Power of Attorney is given to one of the inventors. See below, if more than one inventor.
Please note that a proper reply requires a specific format for any amendments. An example of making a proper amendment can be found at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/formatrevamdtprac.pdf. Also, please see MPEP 714 - https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s714.html -- for the official rules on making a proper amendment to the application. Applicant is urged to follow proper amendment practice to avoid any delays in prosecution.
The USPTO understands Internet E-mail communications may be more convenient for the applicants, however, communication via Internet e-mail proses risks to information confidentiality. The USPTO will NOT respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122 without a signed written authorization by applicant in place. This can be done by submitting PTO FORM SB/439, which can be found at: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf. Please note that every inventor must sign it and the authorization must be submitted via mail, facsimile, or EFS-Web (i.e., it cannot be emailed to the examiner).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN M BROUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7380. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, John Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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.
/KATHLEEN M BROUGHTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661