DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in this amended application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 11, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claimed invention directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “a computing device comprising: a processing device; and a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, responsive to execution by the processing device, causes the processing device to perform operations including: forming data describing spatial and structural characteristics of a layout of digital content; jointly learning a layout representation of the spatial and structural aspects of the digital content at a plurality of resolutions and granularities based on the data using machine learning; and outputting the layout representation”.
The claim limitation of “forming data describing spatial and structural characteristics of a layout of digital content; jointly learning a layout representation of the spatial and structural aspects of the digital content at a plurality of resolutions and granularities based on the data using machine learning; and outputting the layout representation”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer component. That is, other than reciting “by a processing device” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a processing device” language, “forming” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually forming data having spatial and structural characteristics of a layout of digital content. Similarly, the limitations of “jointly learning” a layout having the spatial and structural characteristics of the digital content at a plurality of resolutions and granularities based on the data using machine learning as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer component. For example, but for the “by a processing device” language, “forming” in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking that computing device should be formed data having spatial and structural characteristics of a layout of digital content. If a claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim doesn’t recite any additional element – using a processing device to perform both the forming & jointly learning steps. The processing device in last step is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic control unit performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this final claim limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claimed limitations of using a processing device to perform both the forming & jointly learning steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The other (dependent) claims 2-10, 12-20 are obviously claimed the same subject matter as found in the claims 1, 11, 16 and therefore would be rejected based on same rationale applied on claims 1, 11, 16.
Double Patenting
5. 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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent # 12,105,767 B2.
It is clear that all the elements of an instant application independent claims 1, 11, 16 are to be found in patent (U.S. Patent No. 12,105,767 B2) claims 1, 10, 15 as the instant application independent claims 1, 11, 16 fully encompasses the patent claim 1, 10, 15. The difference between the instant application independent claims 1, 11, 16 and the patent (U.S. Patent No. 12,105,767 B2) claims 1, 10, 15 lies in the fact that the patent (U.S. Patent No. 12,105,767 B2) claim includes many more elements and is thus much more specific. Thus, the invention of claims 1, 10, 15 of the patent (U.S. Patent No. 12,105,767 B2) is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the instant application independent claims 1, 11, 16. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since the instant application independent claims 1, 11, 16 are anticipated by claims 1, 10, 15 of the patent (U.S. Patent No. 12,105,767 B2), it is not patentably distinct from claims 1, 10, 15 of the patent (U.S. Patent No. 12,105,767 B2).
The dependent claims 2-10,12-15,17-20 of the instant application obviously claim the same subject matter as found in the claims 2-9,11-14,16-20 of the parent patent’ 767 and therefore would be rejected based on the claims 2-9,11-14,16-20 of the parent patent’ 767.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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, 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.
8. Claims 1-3, 7, 11-12, 16, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. [hereafter Jin], US Pub 2019/0057527 in view of Zhang, US Pub 2019/0154597.
As to claim 1 [independent], Jin teaches a computing device comprising:
a processing device [fig. 8, element 810; 0077, 0084]; and
a computer-readable storage medium [fig. 8, element 812; 0078-0083] storing instructions that, responsive to execution by the processing device, causes the processing device to perform operations including [fig. 8, element 812; 0078-0083 Jin teaches that the memory 812 stores instructions, and/or functions may be executable/operable by one or more hardware 810 or articles of manufacture (for example, one or more computing devices 802 and/or processing systems 804) to implement techniques]:
forming data describing spatial and structural characteristics of a layout of digital content [fig. 7; 0054-0056, 0067-0072 Jin teaches a computing device 104 forming digital data describing spatial and structural characteristics of a layout of digital content, output to a user interface, the service provider system 102 or a computing device 104, and so forth];
outputting the layout representation [fig. 7; 0054-0056, 0067-0072 Jin teaches a computing device 104 forming digital data describing spatial and structural characteristics of a layout of digital content, output to a user interface, the service provider system 102 or a computing device 104, and so forth].
Jin doesn’t teach jointly learning a layout representation of spatial and structural aspects of the digital content at a plurality of resolutions and granularities based on the data using machine learning; and
Zhang teaches jointly learning a layout representation of spatial and structural aspects of the digital content at a plurality of resolutions and granularities based on the data using machine learning [figs., 5, 13; 0029, 0040, 0080-0093, 0146 Zhang teaches that the digital image or content represents spatial and structural characteristics of the it at a plurality of resolutions and granularities]; and
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Zhang teaching to provide a layout representation of spatial and structural aspects of the digital content at a plurality of resolutions and granularities to modify Jin’s teaching to construct 3D digital representations of a region of a sample at additional resolutions by using 3D images of the additional resolutions, basic physical properties and advanced physical properties of the region are computed by using the additional 3D digital representations and upscaling process is performed to compute physical properties of the sample by using the 3D digital representation. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been benefitted to the user to execute a method enables calculating water relative permeability for the complete series of saturations, and computing saturation levels for limiting critical percolating saturation, and advanced physical properties for porous material sample at less time and cost while maintaining a large representative elementary volume (REV).
As to claim 2 [dependent from claim 1], Jin teaches outputting a result of a search performed using the layout representation [fig. 7; 0054-0056, 0067-0072 Jin teaches a computing device 104 forming digital data describing spatial and structural characteristics of a layout of digital content, output to a user interface, the service provider system 102 or a computing device 104, and so forth].
As to claim 3 [dependent from claim 1], Jin teaches wherein the layout representation forms a hierarchy that is included as part of hierarchy data [fig. 7; 0054-0056, 0067-0072, 0077 Jin teaches a computing device 104 forming digital data describing hierarchal characteristics of a layout of digital content].
As to claim 7 [dependent from claim 1], Jin teaches wherein the spatial aspects are described using a semantic segmentation map [0022, 0039 Jin teaches a computing device 104 utilizes a style classifier trained on numerous digital images to determine one or more aesthetics and/or feelings to include in the style data described as a semantic segmentation map].
As to claim 11 [independent], However, the independent claim 11 essentially claimed same subject matter as claimed in the independent claim 1 for/and/with other claim limitations, and are therefore the independent claim 11 would be rejected based on same rationale as applied to the independent claim 1.
As to claim 12 [dependent from 11], However, the dependent claim 12 essentially claimed same subject matter as claimed in the dependent claim 7 for/and/with other claim limitations, and are therefore the dependent claim 12 would be rejected based on same rationale as applied to the dependent claim 7.
As to claim 16 [independent], However, the independent claim 16 essentially claimed same subject matter as claimed in the independent claim 1 for/and/with other claim limitations, and are therefore the independent claim 16 would be rejected based on same rationale as applied to the independent claim 1.
As to claim 19 [dependent from 16], However, the dependent claim 19 essentially claimed same subject matter as claimed in the dependent claim 7 for/and/with other claim limitations, and are therefore the dependent claim 19 would be rejected based on same rationale as applied to the dependent claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 4-6, 8-10, 13-15, 17-18, 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 (abstract idea), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
10. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The dependent claims 4-6 are allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein the jointly learning includes: calculating a first level representation included as part of the layout representation based on an encoding of a first level of the layout of the digital content; and calculating a second level representation based on an encoding of a second level included as part of the layout representation., wherein the second level representation based on a combination of the encoding of the first level fused with the encoding of the second level., wherein: forming a third level from a hierarchy; and the encoding includes calculating a third level representation included as part of the layout representation based on a combination of the encoding of the first level fused with an encoding of the second level along with an encoding of the third level”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
The dependent claim 8 is allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein the structural aspects are described using a structural adjacency matrix”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
The dependent claim 9 is allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein the spatial aspects and the structural aspects are included as part of the layout representation for first and second levels of the layout”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
The dependent claim 10 is allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein the jointly learning is performed using a joint spatial and structural processing system, the joint spatial and structural processing system including: a spatial pathway configured to model the spatial aspects of the digital content as part of the layout representation; and a structural pathway configured to model the structural aspects of the digital content as part of the layout representation”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
The dependent claim 13 is allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein the structural aspects are modeled as a structural adjacency matrix”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
The dependent claims 14-15 are allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein the plurality of layout representations is encoded using a joint spatial and structural processing system having a spatial pathway and a structural pathway implemented using encoders, respectively, to generate feature data and decoders to generate the layout representation using the feature data., wherein the joint spatial and structural processing system is configured to model the spatial aspects and the structural aspects for each of a plurality of levels of the hierarchy data”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
The dependent claims 17-18 are allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein the jointly learning includes: calculating a first level representation included as part of the layout representation based on an encoding of a first level of the layout of the digital content; and calculating a second level representation based on an encoding of a second level included as part of the layout representation., wherein the second level representation is based on a combination of the encoding of the first level fused with the encoding of the second level”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
The dependent claim 20 is allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein the structural aspects are described using a structural adjacency matrix”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-11, 13-16 have been considered but are moot because the new prior reference(s) is/are being employed in this current rejection and the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
12. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARIS SABAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3917. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday/Friday from 9:00AM to 5:30PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Benny Tieu, can be reached on (571)272-7490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. The Examiner’s personal fax number is (571)270-4917.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/HARIS SABAH/Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights