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 .
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosures of the prior-filed applications, Application Numbers
19/369,319
19/363,675
19/351,286
63/887,491
19/329,369
19/328,199
19/328,179
19/328,103
19/326,730
19/321,173
19/284,115
63/847,889
63/847,091
63/847,101
63/847,082
63/847,096
19/245,366
19/204,525
19/192,215
19/051,193
18/972,797
18/648,340
18/427,716
18/410,980
18/537,728
fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Applicant is respectfully asked to indicate where support may be found in the prior-filed applications for each and every claim element recited by pending claims 1 and 7. Furthermore, provisional application number 63/887,491 does not appear to provide sufficient support for each and every element recited by pending claims 4 and 10. The present application (Appl. No. 19/380,869) is not given the priority dates listed in the Application Data Sheet under the heading “Domestic Benefit/National Stage Information”. For purposes of examination, the present application is considered to have an effective filing date of 11/05/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 12, line 4, “geometric” should recite “geometric bridges” by analogy with claim 6. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 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.
In claim 1, the entire limitation in line 8 renders the claim indefinite because the claim does not explain how the software instructions “enable bidirectional navigation through the manifold”. It is unclear if “the manifold” means “the latent manifold”. Specification paragraph [0057] discloses that a “latent manifold” is a subspace within a high-dimensional latent hyperspace. It is unclear what navigating through the subspace means. It is unclear if line 8 means traversing through the latent manifold in two directions. Examiner treats this limitation to mean traversing through the latent manifold in two directions.
In claim 1, the entire limitation in lines 9-10 renders the claim indefinite. The term “comprehensive” in line 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “comprehensive” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “comprehensive” is a subjective term under MPEP 2173.05(b) subsection IV. The specification does not provide a standard for distinguishing a comprehensive journal entry from a non-comprehensive journal entry. It is unclear whether “traversal” and “each navigation step” are related to navigating through the manifold. Examiner treats “comprehensive journal entries” as merely “journal entries”, and Examiner treats each navigation step as a step during traversal.
In claim 1, the entire limitation in lines 11-12 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how this limitation relates to any feature recited thus far in the claim. It is unclear if the “semantically aligned structures” are structures in the latent manifold, geometric substrate, and/or unified geometric space. Examiner treats this limitation to mean synthesizing any representations spanning multiple modalities, and the structures being in at least one of the latent manifold, geometric substrate, and unified geometric space.
In claim 1, the entire limitation in lines 13-14 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how this limitation relates to any feature recited thus far in the claim. Examiner treats this limitation to mean computing values based on a forward trajectory and a backward trajectory during the bidirectional navigation.
Claims 2-6 are rendered indefinite for failing to cure the deficiencies of claim 1.
In claim 2, the entire limitation in lines 2-3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how this limitation relates to any feature recited in claim 1. Examiner treats local curvature in this limitation as local curvature of the latent manifold.
Claim 3 is rendered indefinite. In line 2, “idle periods” is an indefinite limitation because it is unclear whether claim 1 recites any features with a time component. In lines 3-4, “existing structures” and “redundant structures” are indefinite because it is unclear if these mean structures in the latent manifold, geometric substrate, and/or unified geometric space from claim 1. Examiner treats this limitation to mean executing reorganization during any time period, including removal of unused or redundant structures in at least one of the latent manifold, geometric substrate, and unified geometric space.
In claim 5, the term “relevant” in line 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relevant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “relevant” is a subjective term under MPEP 2173.05(b) subsection IV. The specification does not provide a standard for distinguishing relevant regions from irrelevant regions. Examiner treats “semantically relevant regions” as merely semantic regions.
Claims 7 is a method which recites the same indefinite limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
Claims 8-12 are rejected for failing to cure the deficiencies of claim 7.
Claims 8-9 and 11 are each a method which recites the same indefinite limitations as claims 2-3 and 5, respectively, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-6 recite a system, and claims 7-12 recite a method. A system and a method each falls within one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claim 1
Step 2A Prong 1: Maintain a latent manifold as a geometric substrate incorporating multiple dimensional representations for heterogeneous data modalities is a mathematical concept is a judgement mental process which can reasonably be performed in the human mind with the aid of pencil and paper.
Encode inputs from multiple modalities into a unified geometric space while preserving modality-specific properties through dimensional constraints is a mathematical calculation. Specification paragraph [0074], lines 1-5 discloses the encoder “implements the mathematical transformation” on multimodal inputs.
Enable bidirectional navigation through the manifold is a mathematical calculation. Specification paragraph [0292] discloses a formula for an exponential map to calculate a forward traversal, and paragraph [0300] discloses a formula for the logarithm map to compute a reverse trajectory or inverse displacement.
Record comprehensive journal entries during traversal that capture metric tensors, connection coefficients, and displacement vectors at each navigation step is an observation mental process which can reasonably be performed in the human mind with the aid of pencil and paper.
Synthesize unified representations spanning multiple modalities through geometric recombination of semantically aligned structures is a mathematical calculation. Specification paragraph [0177] discloses a recombination engine implements a geometric recombination formula to synthesize unified representations.
Validate navigation reversibility by computing round-trip residuals and comparing them against defined tolerance thresholds is a mathematical calculation and a judgement mental process which can reasonably be performed in the human mind with the aid of pencil and paper. Specification paragraph [0177] discloses a validator computes a round-trip residual
PNG
media_image1.png
31
183
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, and if the residual is less than a tolerance threshold, the navigation is certified as reversible. A person can compare the round-trip residual to the tolerance threshold and judge which value is smaller. The claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: A computer system comprising a hardware memory, wherein the computer system is configured to execute software instructions stored on nontransitory machine-readable storage media amount to generic computer components to apply the abstract ideas on a generic computer under MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements as disclosed above, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application as they are generic computer functions as disclosed that are implemented to perform the abstract ideas disclosed above. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The additional elements as disclosed above, in combination with the abstract ideas, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas as they are generic computer functions as disclosed that are implemented to perform the abstract ideas disclosed above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 incorporates the limitations from claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The abstract ideas of claim 1 are incorporated. Generate compression pressure fields derived from local curvature that account for information density patterns across different modalities is a mathematical calculation. Specification paragraph [0167] discloses, “Compression field generator 1050 implements field combination algorithms that use weighted integration based on modal importance and semantic context”.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: Software instructions amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract ideas on a generic computer under MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 incorporates the limitations from claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The abstract ideas of claim 1 are incorporated. Execute autonomous reorganization of the latent manifold during idle periods, including perturbation of existing structures, synthesis of new connections between disparate regions, and removal of unused or redundant structures are judgement mental processes which can reasonably be performed in the human mind with the aid of pencil and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: Software instructions amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract ideas on a generic computer under MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 incorporates the limitations from claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The abstract ideas of claim 1 are incorporated. Bidirectional navigation comprises: computing forward trajectories using exponential map operations that follow geodesic paths is a mathematical calculation. Specification paragraph [0292] discloses a formula for the exponential map.
Computing reverse trajectories using logarithm map operations that invert the forward trajectories is a mathematical calculation. Specification paragraph [0300] discloses a formula for the logarithm map to compute the inverse displacement.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements which, alone or in combination, would integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application or which, in combination with the abstract ideas, would be sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 incorporates the limitations from claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The abstract ideas of claim 1 are incorporated. Establish a plurality of goal potential fields that create attractive forces within the latent manifold, guiding path computation toward semantically relevant regions for achieving specific objectives are judgement mental processes which can reasonably be performed in the human mind with the aid of pencil and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: Software instructions amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract ideas on a generic computer under MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 incorporates the limitations from claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The abstract ideas of claim 1 are incorporated. Implement hierarchical organization with multiple nested latent manifolds operating at different levels of abstraction, wherein paths can traverse between abstraction levels through geometric bridges is a judgement mental process which can reasonably be performed in the human mind with the aid of pencil and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: Software instructions amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract ideas on a generic computer under MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 recites a method which implements the same features as the system of claim 1 and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons. In Step 2A Prong 1, the preamble “a persistent cognitive computation with multimodal capabilities” refers to the mathematical calculations in Step 2A Prong 1 of the 101 analysis for claim 1 disclosed above. Claim 7 is not patent eligible.
Claims 8-12 each recites a method which implements the same features as the systems of claims 2-6, respectively, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzalez Aguirre et al. (US 20190135300 A1), hereinafter “Gonzalez”, in view of Wichern et al. (US 20240194213 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gonzalez teaches: A computer system comprising a hardware memory, wherein the computer system is configured to execute software instructions stored on nontransitory machine-readable storage media that: ([0074], lines 6-17)
maintain a latent manifold as a geometric substrate incorporating multiple dimensional representations for heterogeneous data modalities; (Examiner treats both “a latent manifold” and “a unified geometric space” recited in the next limitation as an embedding space of the contextual aggregated sensor data representation 710. See [0037], [0038], lines 1-9 and the next limitation’s mapping.)
encode inputs from multiple modalities into a unified geometric space while preserving modality-specific properties through dimensional constraints; ([0050], lines 1-8; [0051], line 1 to page 7, col. 1, line 10; [0052], lines 1-7; and [0053], from line 1 to col. 2, line 1. Phases 1 to 3 include collecting multi-modal sensor data, encoding each modality through an encoder sub-net, and then normalizing and aggregating the encoded sensor data. The latent space at phase 3 is a “unified geometric space”. Each of the aggregated latent vectors preserves modality-specific properties because their features may overlap. Each of the latent vectors is constrained to a length m.)
…
synthesize unified representations spanning multiple modalities through geometric recombination of semantically aligned structures; and ([0053], col. 2, lines 1-5, [0054], and [0055], lines 1-14, where “unified representations” are contextual fused sensor data representation 716.)
validate navigation reversibility by computing round-trip residuals and comparing them against defined tolerance thresholds. ([0046], [0048], lines 1-5 [0069]-[0071] discloses using an engineered cost function to train an auto-encoder 600, and training the network in Fig. 7 includes at least training global encoder sub-net 703 and decoder sub-nets 705a-d in an end-to-end manner. Validating navigation reversibility includes calculating input-output deviations because each signal decoder performs a reverse function of a corresponding signal encoder. Training converges when the input-output deviation or error is less than a threshold.)
However, Gonzalez does not explicitly teach: enable bidirectional navigation through the manifold;
record comprehensive journal entries during traversal that capture metric tensors, connection coefficients, and displacement vectors at each navigation step;
But Wichern teaches: enable bidirectional navigation through the manifold; ([0062] teaches an exponential map projects a vector of the tangent space at a point x onto a manifold M and inversely a logarithmic map projects any point in M back onto the tangent space at x.)
record comprehensive journal entries during traversal that capture metric tensors, connection coefficients, and displacement vectors at each navigation step; ([0062] discloses an exponential map expx projects any vector v of the tangent space TxM onto M. The projected vector is a metric tensor and a displacement vector, and it is a connection coefficient because it has a value, and its path connects two points.)
Wichern at [0059]-[0060] discloses applying an embedding neural network to input data to output D-dimensional hyperbolic embeddings. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Wichern’s Riemannanian metric and exponential map projection to Gonzalez’s latent space occupied by the contextual aggregated sensor data representation 710. A motivation for the combination is to represent a hierarchy of the embedding which requires less memory and is less computationally extensive since it compactly represents hierarchy. (Wichern, [0061])
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Gonzalez and Wichern teaches: The computer system of claim 1, wherein the software instructions further:
Gonzalez teaches: execute autonomous reorganization of the latent manifold during idle periods, including perturbation of existing structures, synthesis of new connections between disparate regions, and removal of unused or redundant structures. (Examiner treats this limitation to mean executing autonomous reorganization of the latent manifold.
([0069]-[0070] discloses training each of the encoder sub-nets 702a-d in Fig. 7 and then generating contextual aggregated sensor data representations 710 based on the outputs of the trained encoder sub-nets. Training each encoder sub-net reorganizes the latent representation by adjusting numerical values in the latent space. Thus, latent space occupied by the contextual aggregated sensor data representation is also reorganized.)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Gonzalez and Wichern teaches: The computer system of claim 1,
However, Gonzalez does not explicitly teach: wherein bidirectional navigation comprises: computing forward trajectories using exponential map operations that follow geodesic paths; and computing reverse trajectories using logarithm map operations that invert the forward trajectories.
But Wichern teaches: wherein bidirectional navigation comprises: computing forward trajectories using exponential map operations that follow geodesic paths; and ([0062])
computing reverse trajectories using logarithm map operations that invert the forward trajectories. ([0062])
A motivation for the combination is the same as the motivation given for claim 1.
Claim 7 recites a method which implements the same features as the system of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzalez in view of Wichern for at least the same reasons.
Regarding the features “a persistent cognitive computation with multimodal capabilities”, Gonzalez’s multimodal auto-encoder in Fig. 7 performs cognitive computation with multimodal capabilities, and . Gonzalez’s non-transitory computer-readable storage medium at [0074], lines 11-17 is persistent storage.
Claims 9-10 each recites a method which implements the features of claims 3-4, respectively, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
Claims 2, 5, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzalez Aguirre et al. (US 20190135300 A1), hereinafter “Gonzalez”, in view of Wichern et al. (US 20240194213 A1) and Song et al. (“Latent Traversals in Generative Models as Potential Flows”).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Gonzalez and Wichern teaches: The computer system of claim 1, wherein the software instructions further:
Gonzalez teaches: information density patterns across different modalities. ([0046], lines 5-10 and [0052] discloses the contextual aggregated sensor data representation 710 comprises a dense pattern of sensor data from the different sensors types.)
However, Gonzalez does not explicitly teach: generate compression pressure fields derived from local curvature that account for information density patterns across different modalities.
But Wichern teaches: local curvature that accounts for information x at point x on the manifold M, and the manifold may have constant negative curvature -c.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated Wichern’s manifold having a curvature into Gonzalez. A motivation for the combination is the same as the motivation given for claim 1.
However, Gonzalez and Wichern do not explicitly teach: generate compression pressure fields derived from local curvature
But Song teaches: generate compression pressure fields derived from local [landscape] (Page 1, col. 1, § 1 to col. 2, line 12 and lines 30-42 discloses modeling latent traversals as the flow of particles down the gradient of a latent potential landscape. The flow of particles indicates that a pressure field forces the particles to move.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled latent traversals in Gonzalez and Wichern as the flow of particles down the gradient of a latent potential landscape. A motivation for the combination is to allow for a more controlled generation of images without needing to alter or constrain the training process of the generative model itself. (Song, page 1, col. 1, lines 10-12)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Gonzalez and Wichern teaches: The computer system of claim 1, wherein the software instructions further:
However, Gonzalez and Wichern do not explicitly teach: establish a plurality of goal potential fields that create attractive forces within the latent manifold, guiding path computation toward semantically relevant regions for achieving specific objectives.
But Song teaches: establish a plurality of goal potential fields that create attractive forces within the latent manifold, guiding path computation toward semantically relevant regions for achieving specific objectives. (Page 1, Abstract, lines 18-21, Page 1, col. 1, § 1 to col. 2, line 12 and lines 30-42 discloses modeling latent traversals as the flow of particles down the gradient of a latent potential landscape to generate images, and multiple potentials are learned simultaneously. A “plurality of goal potential fields that create attractive forces within the latent manifold” corresponds to potential fields causing the particles to flow down the gradient, and “achieving specific objectives” includes generating images.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled latent traversals in Gonzalez and Wichern as the flow of particles down the gradient of a latent potential landscape. A motivation for the combination is to allow for a more controlled generation of images without needing to alter or constrain the training process of the generative model itself. (Song, page 1, col. 1, lines 10-12)
Claims 8 and 11 each recites a method which implements the features of claim 2 and 5, respectively, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzalez Aguirre et al. (US 20190135300 A1), hereinafter “Gonzalez”, in view of Wichern et al. (US 20240194213 A1) and Jaquier et al. (“High-Dimensional Bayesian Optimization via Nested Riemannian Manifolds”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Gonzalez and Wichern teaches: The computer system of claim 1, wherein the software instructions further:
However, Gonzalez and Wichern do not explicitly teach: implement hierarchical organization with multiple nested latent manifolds operating at different levels of abstraction, wherein paths can traverse between abstraction levels through geometric bridges.
But Jaquier teaches: implement hierarchical organization with multiple nested latent manifolds operating at different levels of abstraction, wherein paths can traverse between abstraction levels through geometric bridges. (Page 5, § 3.3 to page 6, line 3 and Fig. 3. The limitation “paths can traverse between abstraction levels through geometric bridges” corresponds to projection from the sphere S2 onto the subsphere A1.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Jaquier’s nested latent manifolds to the combination of Gonzalez and Wichern. A motivation for the combination is that
nested manifold mappings reduce the dimension of the search space in a systematic and structure-preserving manner, so that the acquisition function can be efficiently optimized on a low-dimensional Riemannian manifold with optimization techniques on Riemannian manifolds, and that intrinsic latent spaces may naturally be encoded with nested manifold mappings in various applications. (Jaquier, Page 5, § 3.3)
Claim 12 recites a method which implements the features of claim 6 and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 and 18, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,699,848 (hereinafter the reference claims) in view of Wichern et al. (US 20240194213 A1). Reference claim 9 inherits the limitations of reference claim 1, and reference claim 18 inherits the limitations of reference claim 10.
Instant claim 1 limitation “A computer system comprising a hardware memory, wherein the computer system is configured to execute software instructions stored on nontransitory machine-readable storage media” corresponds to reference claim 1 limitation “A computer system comprising a hardware memory, wherein the computer system is configured to execute software instructions stored on nontransitory machine-readable storage media”.
Instant claim 1 limitations “maintain a latent manifold as a geometric substrate incorporating multiple dimensional representations for heterogeneous data modalities; encode inputs from multiple modalities into a unified geometric space while preserving modality-specific properties through dimensional constraints” correspond to reference claim 1 limitations “maintain a persistent cognitive substrate incorporating a latent manifold with multimodal geometric representations; encode heterogeneous sensor inputs from a plurality of modalities into modality-specific embedding subspaces within the latent manifold”.
Instant claim 1 limitations “enable bidirectional navigation through the manifold” and “record comprehensive journal entries during traversal…” corresponds to reference claim 1 limitation “compute geodesic trajectories through the unified latent space guided by the multimodal landmarks while maintaining reversibility through journaled geometric state”
Instant claim 1 limitation “synthesize unified representations spanning multiple modalities through geometric recombination of semantically aligned structures” corresponds to reference claim 1 limitation “generate synthetic video output by projecting the geodesic trajectories into visual representations, wherein the synthetic video is derived from the multimodal sensor inputs rather than reconstruction of existing video data”.
Instant claim 1 limitation “validate navigation reversibility by computing round-trip residuals and comparing them against defined tolerance thresholds” corresponds to reference claim 1 limitation “validate reversibility of the generated synthetic video by computing round-trip residuals between forward projection and reverse navigation paths” and reference claim 9 limitations “measuring residual error between forward projection and reverse navigation paths; and triggering corrective refinement when the residual error exceeds a defined tolerance threshold.”
However, reference claims 1 and 9 do not explicitly teach: record comprehensive journal entries during traversal that capture metric tensors, connection coefficients, and displacement vectors at each navigation step;
But Wichern teaches: record comprehensive journal entries during traversal that capture metric tensors, connection coefficients, and displacement vectors at each navigation step; ([0062] discloses an exponential map expx projects any vector v of the tangent space TxM onto M. The projected vector is a metric tensor and a displacement vector, and it is a connection coefficient because it has a value, and its path connects two points.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recorded Wichern’s exponential map projection in reference claim 1’s journaled geometric state. A motivation for the combination is to represent a hierarchy of the embedding which requires less memory and is less computationally extensive since it compactly represents hierarchy. (Wichern, [0061])
This is an obviousness-type double patenting rejection
Instant claim 7 is a method which incorporates the same features as instant claim 1. Instant claim 7 is rejected over reference claim 10 and Wichern for the same reasons as instant claim 1. This is an obviousness-type double patenting rejection
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Balakrishnan et al. (US 11790558 B1) teaches traversing a latent space along traversal paths at C. 6, L. 14-34.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Asher H. Jablon whose telephone number is (571)270-7648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Abdullah Al Kawsar can be reached at (571)270-3169. 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.
/A.H.J./Examiner, Art Unit 2127
/ABDULLAH AL KAWSAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2127
Prosecution Insights