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 .
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 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.
Previous non-compliant amendment office is rescind because the amendment is based on preliminary claims filed on 08/08/2024.
The office action is final because the amended claims are included in the previously cancelled claims 1-20 and no new subject matter or prior arts are introduced in this office action.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 12/17/2025 has been entered.
The double patenting rejection of claims 21-35 is maintained. The current amendment claims are not distinct from the conflicting application.
In response to the Applicant amendments/remarks regarding claims 19-20 that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and corresponding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the amendments have resolved the issues. Accordingly, the corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C 112(b) is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claims 21-22, 26-27 and 31-32 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are cancelled.
Claims 21-35 are pending of which claims 21, 26 and 31 are independent claims.
Response to Arguments
The applicant's arguments filed on 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the Kapoor and Shuster, individually or when combined, do not teach or reasonably suggest determining distances between an event vector and weight vectors associated with neurons in a self-organizing map, wherein the event vector is generated based on one or more hardware performance counter values and updating a weight vector associated with the selected neuron or one or more weight vectors associated with the one or more neighboring neurons based on the determined distance as recited by claim 21. For example, neither reference, individually or when combined.” However, the arguments are amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory Obviousness-Type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of Patent No. 11966473. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the claims of the instant application is fully disclosed and covered by the Application 17/385589.
“A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claim 21 recites "a computer-readable medium”. The computer-readable medium broadly interpreted in light of the specification (see paragraph 38) would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art signals or other forms of propagation and transmission media that fails to be statutory. Therefore, claim 21 is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Examiner respectfully suggests amending the claims to include "non-transitory computer-readable medium" to make the claim statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101. Dependent claims 22-25 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter for the same reasons set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapoor et al. (Pub. No.: US 2012/0240185, hereinafter Kapoor) in view of Shuster (Pub. No.: US 2019/0258951).
Regarding claim 21: Kapoor discloses At least one computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions which, when executed, cause a computing device to perform operations comprising:
determine, by processing circuitry of the computing device, distances between an event vector and weight vectors associated with neurons in a self-organizing map (Kapoor - [0174]: The mapping process involves computing the Euclidean distance between an input vector and the weight vector of an artificial neuron);
select a neuron of the neurons based on a determined distance (Kapoor - [0168]: The artificial neuron, characterized by the weight factor positioned at the smallest Euclidean distance from the feature vector, is declared the winning neuron);
identifying one or more of the neurons that neighbor the selected neuron (Kapoor - [0438]: each neuron 2304 may be randomly assigned a respective initial weight vector and a respective neighborhood, which may consist of all neurons 2304 that may be ‘located’ within some limit distance); and
update a weight vector associated with the selected neuron or oen or more weight vectors associated with the one or more neighboring neurons based on the determined distance (Kapoor - [0439]: The process “competition 2406” is followed by process “cooperation 2408” wherein not only are the weights adjusted for winning neuron 2304, but those of its neighbors, as well).
However Kapoor doesn’t explicitly teach, but Shuster discloses: wherein the event vector is generated based on one or more hardware performance counter values (Shuster - [0042]: the vector module 112 calculates, based on the file 104, a count vector 122 storing a list of values in a plurality of slots. Each slot of the count vector 122 corresponds to a character of the set of distinct characters 120 based on the order, and each value in the count vector 122 represents a number of times the respective character is found in the file).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kapoor with Shuster so that a vector can be generated based on counts of a task. The modification would have allowed the system to generate a count vector.
Regarding claim 22: Kapoor as modified discloses wherein the one or more counter values corresponding to tasks performed by the processing circuitry (Kapoor - [0168]: Mapping may include incrementing or implementing a counter associated with the neuron, updating a running average associated with the neuron, and so forth. See also [0215]).
Regarding claim 23: Kapoor as modified discloses wherein the event vector is generated using a lookup table (Shuster - [0042]: Referring to Table A, the example file has one occurrence of the first element “{”, one occurrence of the second element “}”, twelve occurrences of the third element “″”, three occurrences of the fourth element “:”, three occurrences of the fifth element “,”, and three occurrences of the sixth element character “—” of the set of distinct characters 120. Accordingly, the count vector 122 is <1, 1, 12, 3, 3, 3>).
Shuster is combined with Kapoor herein for similar obviousness reasons and motivation and the same rationale as stated for claim 1.
Regarding claim 24: Kapoor as modified discloses wherein the one or more counts correspond to one or more hardware performance events such that the lookup table corresponds to a combination of counts and event vectors (Shuster - [0049]: the classification module 114 may search for particular features (e.g., a large number of “<” characters in the file relative to other non-alphanumeric characters) in the file, and the prediction module 116 understands a particular pattern in order to predict the file format. The pattern may correspond to the frequency with which one or more non-alphanumeric characters are found in a file and/or the keywords (or a frequency of the keywords) found in the file).
Shuster is combined with Kapoor herein for similar obviousness reasons and motivation and the same rationale as stated for claim 1.
Regarding claim 25: Kapoor as modified discloses wherein the one or more processors comprises one or more application processors coupled to one or more graphics processors and further coupled to a memory (Kapoor - [0229]: Each of the application processing units 502 may include an application accelerator 504, a central processing unit (CPU) 508, a random access memory device (RAM) 510, and a plurality of applications 512. See also [0485]).
Regarding claims 26-28: Claims are directed to a method claims and do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claims 21-25. Therefore, claims 26-28 are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claims 21-25.
Regarding claims 31-35: Claims are directed to an apparatus claims and do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claims 21-25. Therefore, claims 31-35 are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claims 21-25. Further, Kapoor discloses processor circuitry in paragraph [0229].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gutta et al. (Pub. No.: US 2003/0140019) - Self-organizing feature map with improved performance by non-monotonic variation of the learning rate
Lin et al. (Patent No.: US 10,810,103) - Method and system for identifying event-message transactions
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MENG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-8729. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s acting supervisor, Kristine Kincaid can be reached on (571) 270-5143. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8729.
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.
/MENG LI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights