DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the Application filed on May 17, 2024, which claims priority Japan Patent Application No. 2023-084071 filed on May 22, 2023. An action on the merits follows. Claims 1-10 are pending on the application.
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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 5-6, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites the limitation “generates image data from a matrix in which the embeddings are arranged, as rows or columns” and “detects, as a feature of the image data” in lines 11-16 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “image data” and “a matrix in which the embeddings are arranged, as rows or columns” encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “image data” and “a matrix which includes the embeddings as rows or columns” recited in lines 8-10 of claim 1, or not, for example. Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “a feature of the image data” recited in claim 2 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “a feature of the image data” recited in lines 11-12 of claim 1, or not, for example.
Therefore, based on above, for examination purposes the claimed “generates image data from a matrix in which the embeddings are arranged, as rows or columns” and “detects, as a feature of the image data” in lines 11-16 of claim 2 will be interpreted as “generates the image data from the matrix in which the embeddings are arranged, as rows or columns” and “detects, as the feature of the image data”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “generates image data” in line 4 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “image data” recited in claim 5 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “image data” recited in line 8 of claim 1, or not, for example.
Therefore, based on above, for examination purposes the claimed “generates image data” in line 4 of claim 5 will be interpreted as “generates the image data”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “generates image data” in line 4 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “image data” recited in claim 6 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “image data” recited in line 8 of claim 1, or not, for example.
Therefore, based on above, for examination purposes the claimed “generates image data” in line 4 of claim 6 will be interpreted as “generates the image data”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “image data generated” in lines 5-6 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “image data” recited in claim 8 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “image data” recited in line 8-1 of claim 1, or not, for example.
Therefore, based on above, for examination purposes the claimed “image data generated” recited in lines 5-6 of claim 8 will be interpreted as “the image data generated”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3-4 and 7 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a proportion of the number of first boundaries which have been determined to conform to second boundaries to the number of second boundaries” in lines 5-8 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed limitation “the number of first boundaries” and “the number of second boundaries” recited in lines 5-8 of the claim. Therefore, the lack of antecedent basis makes the scope of the claim indeterminate.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the number of first boundaries to the number of second boundaries” in lines 6-7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed limitation “the number of first boundaries” and “the number of second boundaries” recited in lines 6-7 of the claim. Therefore, the lack of antecedent basis makes the scope of the claim indeterminate.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “in a case where a plurality of training data pieces” in lines 19-20 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “a plurality of training data pieces” recited in claim 7 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “a plurality of training data pieces” recited in line 5 of claim 1, or not, for example.
Therefore, based on above, for examination purposes the claimed “in a case where a plurality of training data pieces” recited in lines 19-20 of claim 7 will be interpreted as “in a case where the plurality of training data pieces”.
Claim 7 further recites the limitation “satisfies a predetermined criterion… does not satisfy a criterion” in lines 23-26 of the claim. However, the claimed “a predetermined criterion” and “a criterion” terms recited in lines 23-26 of claim 7 are not defined by the claims. Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “a criterion” term recited in line 26 of claim 7 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “a predetermined criterion” previously recited in lines 23-24 of the claim, or if the claimed “a criterion” term recited in line 26 of claim 7 encompass embodiments corresponding another “criterion” different from the claimed “a predetermined criterion” previously recited in lines 23-24 of the claim, for example, because the claimed “a predetermined criterion” and “a criterion” terms recited in lines 23-26 of claim 7 are not defined by the claims. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 9-10 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the following limitations as claimed:
In view of claim 1 in its entirety, the further limitations of “… an acquisition process of acquiring embeddings for natural language sentences that are respectively included in a plurality of training data pieces, the embeddings having been generated with use of an embedding layer included in a language processing model;
a generation process of generating image data by converting elements of a matrix which includes the embeddings as rows or columns into pixel values;
a detection process of detecting a feature of the image data; and
an evaluation process of evaluating quality of the embedding layer based on the feature of the image data” as recited in claim 1. Examiner was not able to find art similar to aforementioned feature limitations of claim 1.
Independent claims 9 and 10 recite similar feature limitations as in claim 1.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUILLERMO M RIVERA-MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-4979. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached on 571-270-5183. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/GUILLERMO M RIVERA-MARTINEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights