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 .
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 12-22 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 12, lines 9-10 recite the limitation “during subsequently performed execution iteration.” However, the claim was amended to delete “an execution iteration” from line 3, which renders the limitation “subsequently performed execution iteration” indefinite, as it is unclear what it is to be performed subsequently to.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the execution iteration" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "an execution iteration" in line 17. It is unclear if this corresponds to “the execution iteration” of line 14, the “subsequently performed execution iteration” from lines 9-10, or a new execution iteration.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the execution iteration" in line 19. It is unclear if this corresponds to “an execution iteration” of line 17, “the execution iteration” of line 14, or the “subsequently performed execution iteration” of lines 9-10.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "an execution iteration" in line 20. It is unclear if this corresponds to “the execution iteration” of line 19, “an execution iteration” of line 17, “the execution iteration” of line 14, the “subsequently performed execution iteration” from lines 9-10, or a new execution iteration.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the output data" in lines 11 and 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12, line 8 recites “checks which of output data of functions of concatenated function,” which appears to be claiming a plurality of output data, so it is unclear which output data “the output data” of lines 11 and 13 are intended to refer to.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the concatenated functions" in line 21. It is unclear if this is referring to the “concatenated functions” of line 8 or the “concatenated functions” of line 20.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the problems to be solved" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 13-22 depend from claim 12 and do not resolve the deficiencies of the parent claims, and are therefore also rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s amendments overcome the outstanding rejection of claims 12-22 under 35 USC 103, but create new issues that necessitated a rejection under 35 USC 112(b).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RYAN DARE whose telephone number is (571)272-4069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Hosain Alam can be reached at 571-272-3978. 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.
/RYAN DARE/Examiner, Art Unit 2132
/HOSAIN T ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2132
Prosecution Insights