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 .
Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on December 30, 2024 has been entered and made of record. Currently, claims 2-21 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 2-17 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they are all method claims.
Claims 20-21 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because each of these claims is a manufacture claim.
Claims 18-19 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the recitations of “computer” and “storage devices storing instructions” provide sufficient structure to perform all claimed limitations.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 22 line 11, “region 5100” ought to be changed to “region 510”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The “indicates” recited in line 2 ought to be changed to “indicate”.
Claim 21 is a manufacture claim and depends on a system claim 19. It is considered to be a typographical error so please correct it. For examination purpose, it depends form claim 20.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 obviousness-type 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); 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 conflicting 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.
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).
An obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but an examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined 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). Anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness” (In re Kalm, 154 USPQ 10 (CCPA 1967), also In re Dailey, 178 USPQ 293 (CCPA 1973) and In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974)).
Claims 2-3, 7-8 and 11-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Pat. No. 11,580,401 B2 (referred as ‘401 patent hereinafter).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation of the instant claims is fully defined by claims of the ‘401 patent. For example, as to the instant claim 1, claim of the‘401 patent disclose a method comprising (see line 1):
receiving information identifying occurrences of topological patterns of activity in a recurrent artificial neural network in response to input of a plurality of different elements into the recurrent artificial neural network (see claim 17 lines 2-5);
calculating distances between the different elements based on the occurrences of the topological patterns of activity, wherein the distances are calculated using a distance metric that treats a first subset of the topological patterns of activity differently from a second subset of topological patterns of activity (see claim 17 lines 6-12 (metric is inherently included because it is how distances are calculated (see page 4 of the instant Spec.)); and claim 18); and
adjusting one or more characteristics of the recurrent artificial neural network to increase or decrease the distances (see claim 17 lines 13-15).
Regarding instant claim 3, claim 20 of the ‘401 patent discloses wherein a complexity of the topological patterns in the second subset of the topological patterns is lower than a complexity of the topological patterns in the first subset (see lines 1-4).
Regarding instant claim 7, claim 19 of the ‘401 patent discloses wherein the distance calculation weighs the first subset of the topological patterns as more strongly indicative of distance than the second subset of topological pattern (see lines 1-4).
Regarding instant claim 8, claim 18 of the ‘401 patent discloses wherein different distance calculations are used for the first subset of the topological patterns of activity and the second subset of topological patterns of activity (see lines 1-4).
Regarding instant claim 11, claim 18 of the ‘401 patent discloses wherein the plurality of different elements comprise different subsets of elements, wherein each subset of elements comprises a respective class of input data (see “first element” and “second element” recited in claim 17 of the ‘401 patent).
Regarding instant claim 12, while claims 17-23 of the ‘401 patent do not disclose claim limitation “wherein the different subsets of elements comprise data from different sensors”, such a claim limitation is well known in the art (Official Notice). The motivation for doing so is to improve accuracy of the network so that the object could be correctly detected. Thus, before the effective filing date of the instant claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitation in combination with claims of the ‘401 patent for that reasons.
Regarding instant claim 13, while claims 17-23 of the ‘401 patent do not disclose claim limitation “wherein adjusting one or more characteristics of the recurrent artificial neural network to increase or decrease the distances comprises one or more of: adding or removing nodes or links from the recurrent artificial neural network, adjusting weights of links, or adjusting topological patterns that are represented in outputs of the recurrent artificial neural network”. such a claim limitation is well known in the art (Official Notice). The motivation for doing so is to reduce the workload of the network and to improve accuracy of the network so that the object could be faster and correctly detected. Thus, before the effective filing date of the instant claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitation in combination with claims of the ‘401 patent for that reasons.
Regarding instant claim 14, it recites “comparing the calculated distances to a target output; and training the recurrent artificial neural network based on the comparison” (se claim 17 of the ‘401 patent (i.e., “adjusting…distances” inherently includes comparison between distances and target out and training the network in order to adjust the network to reduce/increase distances).
Regarding instant claim 15, it recites “wherein the topological patterns of activity occur comprises determining whether simplex patterns of activity occur” (see claim 23 of the ‘401 patent).
Regarding instant claim 16, it recites “wherein the simplex patterns enclose cavities” (see claim 23 of the ‘401 patent; patents include enclose cavities inherently).
Regarding instant claim 17, it recites “wherein the recurrent artificial neural network is untrained” (see claim 22 of the ‘401 patent).
Regarding instant claim 18, the advanced statements as applied to the counterpart claim 2 are incorporated hereinafter. While claims of the ‘401 patent do not disclose claim limitations “one or more computers” and “storage device storing instructions”, such claim limitations are well known in the art (Official Notice). The motivation for doing so is to speed up the network and to improve accuracy of the network so that the object could be faster and correctly detected. Thus, before the effective filing date of the instant claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitation in combination with claims of the ‘401 patent for that reasons.
Regarding instant claim 19, see rejection applied to instant claim 3 above.
Regarding instant claim 20, the advanced statements as applied to the counterpart claims 2 and 18 are incorporated hereinafter. While claims of the ‘401 patent do not disclose claim limitations “at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium encoded with executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations”, such claim limitations are well known in the art (Official Notice). The motivation for doing so is to speed up the network and to improve accuracy of the network so that the object could be faster and correctly detected. Thus, before the effective filing date of the instant claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitation in combination with claims of the ‘401 patent for that reasons.
Regarding instant claim 21, see rejection applied to instant claims 3 and 19 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 9-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4 as a representative claim, the cited prior art does not teach or suggest claim limitations “wherein topological patterns in the second subset of the topological patterns represent lower level abstractions of input of elements into the recurrent artificial neural network than topological patterns in the first subset of the topological patterns”.
Claims 5-6 depend from claim 4. Therefore, these claims are also allowable for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 9 as a representative claim, the cited prior art does not teach or suggest claim limitations “wherein the distances are calculated in a multi-step process, wherein in a first step distances are calculated for topological patterns of activity that correspond to a relatively higher level abstractions and in a second step distances are calculated for topological patterns of activity that correspond to a relatively lower level abstraction”.
Claim 10 depends from claim 9 and thus is also allowable for the same reasons.
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 Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gandhi et al (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2023/0177823 A1) teaches a system and method for training neural networks for detecting non-compliant content in the image (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY M DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 7:00AM to 3:00PM.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on 571-272-3382. 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.
DMD
6/2026
/DUY M DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights