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 .
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of prior U.S. Patent No. 11,955,520. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Application No: 18/974,118
Patent No: 11,955,520
1. An integrated circuit for detecting keywords, comprising: a keyword identifier host processor configured to identify one or more words within a received data stream; a co-processor comprising an artificial neural network configured to identify one or more desired keywords among the one or more words received from the host processor; and an interface between the host processor and the co-processor configured to transmit information therebetween.
1. An integrated circuit for detecting keywords, comprising: a keyword identifier host processor configured to identify one or more words within a received data stream; a co-processor comprising an artificial neural network configured to identify one or more desired keywords among the one or more words received from the host processor; and an interface between the host processor and the co-processor configured to transmit information therebetween.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,504,507. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application are similar in scope and content of the patented claim 1 of the patent issued to the same Applicant.
It is clear that all the elements of the application claim 1 are to be found in patented claim 1 (as the application claim 1 fully encompasses patented claim 1). The difference between the application claims and the patent claims lies in the fact that the patent claim includes many more elements and is thus much more specific. Thus the invention of claim 1 of the patent is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the application claim 1. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since application claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1 of the patent, it is not patentably distinct from of the patented claims.
Application No: 18/974,118
Patent No: 10,504,507
1. An integrated circuit for detecting keywords, comprising: a keyword identifier host processor configured to identify one or more words within a received data stream; a co-processor comprising an artificial neural network configured to identify one or more desired keywords among the one or more words received from the host processor; and an interface between the host processor and the co-processor configured to transmit information therebetween.
1. An integrated circuit for detecting keywords, comprising: a keyword identifier host processor operable as a stand-alone host processor and configured to identify one or more words within a received audio stream; a neuromorphic co-processor including an artificial neural network that is configured to identify one or more desired keywords among the one or more words received from the host processor; and a communications interface between the host processor and the co-processor configured to transmit information therebetween.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,165,632. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application are similar in scope and content of the patented claim 1 of the patent issued to the same Applicant.
It is clear that all the elements of the application claim 1 are to be found in patented claim 1 (as the application claim 1 fully encompasses patented claim 1). The difference between the application claims and the patent claims lies in the fact that the patent claim includes many more elements and is thus much more specific. Thus the invention of claim 1 of the patent is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the application claim 1. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since application claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1 of the patent, it is not patentably distinct from of the patented claims.
Application No: 18/974,118
Patent No: 12,165,632
1. An integrated circuit for detecting keywords, comprising: a keyword identifier host processor configured to identify one or more words within a received data stream; a co-processor comprising an artificial neural network configured to identify one or more desired keywords among the one or more words received from the host processor; and an interface between the host processor and the co-processor configured to transmit information therebetween.
1. An integrated circuit for detecting keywords or sound, comprising: a host processor configured to receive a data stream and compute frequency component signals for the data stream; a co-processor configured to identify one or more desired keywords or sound within the computed frequency component signals; wherein at least one of the host processor and co-processor is configured to remain in a low-power, always-on state that is continuously ready to detect the desired keyword or sound; the co-processor comprising an enhancement network with cloud-updateable synaptic weights; and an interface between the host processor and the co-processor configured to transmit information therebetween.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Holdren et al., (US 2016/0111090 A1).
As per claim 1, Holdren et al., teach an integrated circuit for detecting keywords (0019), comprising:
a keyword identifier host processor configured to identify one or more words within a received data stream (0014, 0032, 0036, 0054);
a co-processor comprising an artificial neural network configured to identify one or more desired keywords among the one or more words received from the host processor (0037- 0039); and
an interface between the host processor and the co-processor configured to transmit information therebetween (0020, 0023, 0032-0033, 0035).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form PTO-892.
The following is pertinent prior art of record.
Liu et al., (US 2015/0162002 A1) teach examples which disclose a low power integrated circuit to receive and digitize an audio stream. Further, the examples provide the low power integrated circuit to compare the digitized audio stream to a keyword and store the digitized audio stream in a memory. Additionally, the examples also disclose upon recognition of the keyword in the digitized audio stream, the low power integrated circuit transmits a signal to a processor to increase power and analyze the digitized audio stream.
Chen et al., (US 2017/0286827 A1) teach an apparatus and method for a neuromorphic processor design in which neuron timing information is duplicated on a neuromorphic core. For example, one embodiment of an apparatus comprises: a first neurosynaptic core comprising a plurality of neurons and a synapse array comprising a plurality of synapses to communicatively couple the plurality of neurons, each synapse connecting two neurons having a weight associated therewith, wherein a first neuron is to generate an output spike based on the weights of synapses over which inputs are received from the other neurons; a second neurosynaptic core also comprising a plurality of neurons and having at least one counter to maintain a count value indicative of spike timing for a second neuron, wherein a spike output of the second neuron in the second neurosynaptic core is communicatively coupled over a first synapse to the first neuron in the first neurosynaptic core; and a duplicate counter maintained within the first neurosynaptic core and synchronized with the counter from the second neurosynaptic core, the first neuron to use a first value from the duplicate counter to adjust the weight of the first synapse coupling the second neuron to the first neuron.
Lindahl (US 2015/0106085 A1) teaches a system and method for parallel speech recognition processing of multiple audio signals produced by multiple microphones in a handheld portable electronic device. In one embodiment, a primary processor transitions to a power-saving mode while an auxiliary processor remains active. The auxiliary processor then monitors the speech of a user of the device to detect a wake-up command by speech recognition processing the audio signals in parallel. When the auxiliary processor detects the command it then signals the primary processor to transition to active mode. The auxiliary processor may also identify to the primary processor which microphone resulted in the command being recognized with the highest confidence.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIJAY B CHAWAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7601. The examiner can normally be reached 7-5 Monday thru Thursday.
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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at 571-272-7602. 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.
/VIJAY B CHAWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658
Prosecution Insights