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 .
This Office Action is in response to the filing date of 5/24/2024.
Claims 1-13 are pending and have been considered below.
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.
Claim 7 is 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. The claim relates to a non-transitory computer readable recording medium but claiming the method of claim 1. Applicant is respectfully requested to clarify the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more:
Regarding claim 1:
Under Prong 1 Step 2A, the claim recites “…the inference performs operations as follows: at each layer of an encoder and decoder, normalizing input tokens by grouping similar tokens in an input vector and then dividing each group by a sum of unique values, and applying positional embedding at each layer of the encoder” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Prong 2, Step 2A, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements “a computing apparatus having at least one processor”, “Byte-Pair-Encoding tokenization”, and “Inference model” are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer, with instructions, as a tool to perform the abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.05(f), thus, not indicative of an integration into a practical application. The additional element of “using the assembly code as an input” does nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to mount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements “a computing apparatus having at least one processor”, “Byte-Pair-Encoding tokenization”, and “Inference model” are the mere use of generic computer to implement the abstract idea, as discussed above, which does not amount to significantly more, thus, not inventive concept. The additional element of “using the assembly code as an input” which merely insignificant extra solution activity of gathering data and the courts have identified gathering data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 12, and 13:
The claims fail to recite additional elements that are sufficient to mount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 8:
Under Prong 1 Step 2A, the claim recites “inferring the function symbols based on the input, wherein the inference performs operations as follows: at each layer of an encoder and decoder, normalizing input tokens by grouping similar tokens in an input vector and then dividing each group by a sum of unique values, and applying positional embedding at each layer of the encoder” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Prong 2, Step 2A, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements “a computing apparatus comprising a memory and a processor” and “a transformer-based function symbol Inference model” are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer, with instructions, as a tool to perform the abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.05(f), thus, not indicative of an integration into a practical application. The additional element of “using the assembly code as an input” does nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to mount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements “a computing apparatus comprising a memory and a processor” and “a transformer-based function symbol Inference model” are the mere use of generic computer to implement the abstract idea, as discussed above, which does not amount to significantly more, thus, not inventive concept. The additional element of “using the assembly code as an input” which merely insignificant extra solution activity of gathering data and the courts have identified gathering data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
With respect to independent claim 1, applicant’s claimed invention is allowable over the prior arts of record as the prior arts do not teach or suggest, either solely or in any reasonable combination limitations “inferring the function symbols based on the input, wherein the inference model performs operations as follows: at each layer of an encoder and decoder, normalizing input tokens by grouping similar tokens in an input vector and then dividing each group by a sum of unique values, and applying positional embedding at each layer of the encoder.”
Independent claim 8 recites similar limitations as in claim 1 and therefore is allowed over the prior arts of record for the same reason given for claim 1 above.
Claims 2-7 and 9-13 directly or indirectly depend on claims 1 and 8 respectively and therefore are allowed the same reason given for claim 1 above.
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 Reason for Allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILLIP H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1070. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Wei Zhen can be reached at (571) 272-3708. 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.
/PHILLIP H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights