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 .
This action is responding to the RCE amendment filed on 9/18/2025.
Claims 1-36 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 2, 6, 12, 13, 18, 21, 22, 23, 27, 29, and 34 are objected to because of the following informalities:
per claim 2, “if executed, cause” needs to be “if executed, causes.” “is fetched” on the last line needs to be “are fetched.”
Per claims 6, 12, 13, 21, 27, 35 “comprises” needs to be “comprise.”
Per claim 18, “are” needs to be “is.”
Per claim 23, “is fetched” on the last line needs to be “are fetched.” On line 11, “cause” needs to be “causes.”
Per claim 29, “cause” and “is fetched” need to be “causes” and “are fetched” respectively.
Per claim 34, “includes” needs to be “include.”
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 1-36 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.
Claims 1, 7, 14, 22, 28 recite the limitation "the data” on the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear to what data it is referring and how it is related to the recited data fetches and matrix operations. Interpretation: data obtained from the data fetches for an operand of the one or more mutually exclusive pluralities of matrix operations.
Per claim 2, it is unclear whether the “portions of data” refer to portions of the data recited in claim 1. Interpretation: portions of the data. “one or more data fetch circuits” is interpreted as “the one or more data fetch circuits.”
Per claim 8, it is unclear whether the “portions of data” refer to portions of the data recited in claim 1. Interpretation: portions of the data.
Per claim 15, it is unclear whether the “data” on line 6 refers to the data recited in claim 1. Interpretation: the data. The executable code on the last line is interpreted as the executable code.
Per claim 17, it is unclear whether the “source code” on line 4 refers to the source code recited in claim 1. Interpretation: the source code.
Per claims 23, 29, it is unclear whether the “portions of data” refer to portions of the data recited in claim 1. Interpretation: portions of the data. “executable code” is interpreted as the executable code. “one or more data fetch circuits” is interpreted as “the one or more data fetch circuits.”
Per claim 29, “matrix operation” on line 3 and last line is interpreted as “matrix operations.”
Per claim 30, “matrix operation” on lines 5 and 7 is interpreted as one or more mutually exclusive pluralities of matrix operations.
Per claim 31, “a compiler” is interpreted as “the compiler.” “matrix operation” on the last line is interpreted as one or more mutually exclusive pluralities of matrix operations.
Per claim 35, “matrix operation” on line 2 is interpreted as “matrix operations.”
Per claim 36, “The processor claim 1” is interpreted as “The processor of claim 28.”
Per claims 2-6, 8-13, 23-27, and 29-36, these claims are also rejected based on dependency from claims 1, 7, 14, 22, and 28 respectively.
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 1-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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. Specifically, claims 1-36 are directed to an abstract idea.
Per claim 1, the claim is directed to an idea of itself, mental processes that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. The steps of detecting in source code structural information, generating executable code, and compiling the executable code, as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of mental processes. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. A developer can certainly review and source code and detect data in it. Generating executable code is not recited in particular manners and the executable code does not need to be a large amount. That said, a developer can manually generate a binary executable code to make a circuit fetch and execute data even if it may be a tedious and error-prone process. Furthermore, it is not even clear whether performing matrix operation is actually performed. Regardless, performing a matrix operation is a mathematical operation that can be done in a human mind. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A. The additional limitations, including circuitry and data fetch circuits are described at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, or merely a generic computer or generic computer components intended to perform the judicial exception. See MPEP see MPEP 2106.05(f) /2106.05(h). It is noted that employing generic computer functions or tools to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. The circuitry is to merely apply the mental processes. To the extent a computer is required for the mental processes, the claims “do[] no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. It is noted that automating mental processes by using a generic computer does not make the abstract idea to be automatically patent eligible. See MPEP see MPEP 2106.05(f) /2106.05(h). Therefore, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components or insignificant extra solution activities (e.g. processors, devices, program instructions, data gathering and displaying output), then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1: Abstract idea grouping? Yes, Mental Process). Insignificant extra solution activities or mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Viewing the limitations individually and as a combination, the additional elements merely perform the mental steps using generic computing components without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. For at least these reasons, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Per claims 2-6, these claims are directed to the same idea itself as in claim 1, reciting details of the data and abstract idea without adding any other additional element that is significantly more. The steps of determining, generating, and detecting are mental processes. Therefore, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as in claim 1.
Per claims 7-13, these claims are directed to the same idea itself as in claims 1-6, reciting details of the data and abstract idea without adding any other additional element that is significantly more. The additional limitations, one or more memories and circuits are generic computing components to apply the mental processes. Therefore, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as in claims 1-6.
Per claims 14-21, these claims are directed to the same idea itself as in claims 1-6, reciting details of the data and abstract idea without adding any other additional element that is significantly more. Therefore, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as in claims 1-6.
Per claims 22-36, these claims are directed to the same idea itself as in claims 1-6, reciting details of the data and abstract idea including the recited detecting, determining, and generating steps with generic computing components including ALUs, circuits, and compiler without adding any other additional element that is significantly more. Therefore, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as in claims 1-6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 9/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s statement that the steps of detecting in source code, generating executable code cannot be practically performed in the human mind, the steps of detecting in source code structural information, generating executable code, and compiling the executable code can be mental processes. As stated above, a developer can certainly review and source code and detect data in it. Generating executable code is not recited in particular manners and the executable code does not need to be a large amount. That said, a developer can manually generate a binary executable code to make a circuit fetch, compile, and execute data even if it may be a tedious and even error-prone process. Furthermore, it is not even clear whether performing matrix operation is actually performed. Regardless, performing a matrix operation is a mathematical operation that can be done in a human mind.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-36 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance over prior arts: While Yu teaches performing neural network inference convolution calculations, acquiring a structure and parameters of a neural network; generating a directed acyclic graph of instructions for performing neural network computation according to types and dependency relationships based on the structure of the neural network; topologically sorting the directed acyclic graph to obtain instructions having a specific order; and generating binary instruction codes having the specific order for performing neural network computation by the computing system for performing high parallelism calculations, Espig teaches fast Fourier transform configuration and computation instructions with a matrix operations circuit including a two-dimensional grid, Redfern teaches a matrix multiplication accelerator in convolutional neural networks, executing the configured fundamental computational primitive, US 10884734 teaches acceleration of a matrix multiply accumulate operation and data loading, ultimately the prior arts of record, taken alone or in combination, do not teach the subject matter recited in the claims: detect, in source code, structural information of one or more mutually exclusive pluralities of matrix operations, the one or more mutually exclusive pluralities of matrix operations corresponding to one or more mutually exclusive pluralities of data fetches generate executable code based at least in part on the structural information and prior to performing a corresponding one of the one or more mutually exclusive pluralities of matrix operations, compile the executable code to cause one or more data fetch circuits to fetch the data.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10884734 teaches acceleration of a matrix multiply accumulate operation and data loading.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INSUN KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3724. The examiner can normally be reached M-TR 8 -5pm; week 2: Tu-F 8-5pm.
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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/INSUN KANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193