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 § 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 1-4, 7-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea with significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1,
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a method for compressing a deep neural network (DNN), which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“(a) performing an intra-convolution kernel pruning of the DNN model wherein a fixed number of weights are pruned in each convolution kernel of the DNN model to generate sparse convolution patterns, wherein remaining weights in each convolution kernel form a kernel pattern selected from a pre-defined pattern set”
“(b) performing inter-convolution kernel pruning of the DNN model to generate connectivity sparsity, wherein inter-convolution kernel pruning comprises removing at least one kernel corresponding to an input channel and an output channel to cut connections between the input channel and the output channel of the DNN model”
“performing filter kernel reordering to organize filters together according to their similarity such that kernels that are identical in a filter are ordered together thereby improving intra-thread parallelization thereby improving inter-thread parallelization, wherein the similarity between filters is based on the number of non-empty kernels in each filter and the number of kernels at identical positions with identical pattern identifiers”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations:
“(c) training the DNN model compressed in steps (a) and (b)”
“(d) applying a compiler-assisted DNN acceleration framework to the DNN model trained in (c) to generate code to be executed on the mobile device, wherein step (d) comprises removing memory-level input load redundancy corresponding to the DNN model trained in (c)”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations:
“storing, in a memory, weights of the DNN model in a compact format that supports branch-less DNN execution”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” and “insignificant extra-solution activity”. Furthermore, the “storing” limitation recites the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 2,
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to a method for compressing a deep neural network (DNN), which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein step (d) includes converting the DNN model trained in (c) into one or more computational graphs”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“performing one or more compiler optimizations based on the sparse convolution patterns for compressed DNN execution”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3,
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a method for compressing a deep neural network (DNN), which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 2.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“wherein the one or more compiler optimizations are applicable to a CPU or a GPU of the mobile device”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4,
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a method for compressing a deep neural network (DNN), which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the one or more compiler optimizations includes performing a fine-grained Layerwise Representation (LR) to capture the sparse convolution patterns and the connectivity sparsity from (a) and (b)”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 2.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 2.
Regarding Claim 7,
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a method for compressing a deep neural network (DNN), which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 2.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“wherein the one or more compiler optimizations includes performing load redundancy elimination in the DNN model.”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 8,
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a method for compressing a deep neural network (DNN), which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the one or more compiler optimizations includes automatically tuning configuration parameters”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 2.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 2.
Regarding Claim 9,
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to a computer system for compressing a deep neural network (DNN), which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“(a) perform an intra-convolution kernel pruning of the DNN model wherein a fixed number of weights are pruned in each convolution kernel of the DNN model to generate sparse convolution patterns, wherein remaining weights in each convolution kernel form a kernel pattern selected from a pre-defined pattern set”
“(b) perform inter-convolution kernel pruning of the DNN model to generate connectivity sparsity, wherein inter-convolution kernel pruning comprises removing at least one kernel corresponding to an input channel and an output channel to cut connections between the input and the output channel of the DNN model”
“performing filter kernel reordering to organize filters together according to their similarity such that kernels that are identical in a filter are ordered together thereby improving intra-thread parallelization thereby improving inter-thread parallelization, wherein the similarity between filters is based on the number of non-empty kernels in each filter and the number of kernels at identical positions with identical pattern identifiers”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations:
“A computer system, comprising: at least one processor; memory associated with the at least one processor; and a program supported in the memory for compressing a deep neural network (DNN) model by DNN weight pruning and accelerating DNN execution in a mobile device to achieve real-time inference, the program containing a plurality of instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to”
“train the DNN model compressed in steps (a) and (b)”
“apply a compiler-assisted DNN acceleration framework to the DNN model trained in (c) to generate code to be executed on the mobile device, wherein step (d) comprises removing memory-level input load redundancy corresponding to the DNN model trained in (c)”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations:
“storing, in a memory, weights of the DNN model in a compact format that supports branch-less DNN execution”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” and “insignificant extra-solution activity”. Furthermore, the “storing” limitation recites the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 10,
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a computer system for compressing a deep neural network (DNN), which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein step (d) includes converting the DNN model trained in (c) into one or more computational graphs.”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation:
“performing one or more compiler optimizations based on the sparse convolution patterns for compressed DNN execution”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 11,
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to a computer system for compressing a deep neural network (DNN), which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 10.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“wherein the one or more compiler optimizations are applicable to a CPU or a GPU of the mobile device”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 12,
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to a computer system for compressing a deep neural network (DNN), which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the one or more compiler optimizations includes performing a fine-grained Layerwise Representation (LR) to capture the sparse convolution patterns and the connectivity sparsity from (a) and (b)”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 10.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 10.
Regarding Claim 15,
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to a computer system for compressing a deep neural network (DNN), which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 10.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“wherein the one or more compiler optimizations includes performing load redundancy elimination in the DNN model.”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 16,
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to a computer system for compressing a deep neural network (DNN), which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the one or more compiler optimizations includes automatically tuning configuration parameters”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 10.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 10.
Regarding Claim 17,
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 17 is directed to a computer program product for compressing a deep neural network (DNN), which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“(a) perform an intra-convolution kernel pruning of the DNN model wherein a fixed number of weights are pruned in each convolution kernel of the DNN model to generate sparse convolution patterns, wherein remaining weights in each convolution kernel form a kernel pattern selected from a pre-defined pattern set”
“(b) perform inter-convolution kernel pruning of the DNN model to generate connectivity sparsity, wherein inter-convolution kernel pruning comprises removing at least one kernel corresponding to an input channel and an output channel to cut connections between the input channel and the output channel of the DNN model”
“performing filter kernel reordering to organize filters together according to their similarity such that kernels that are identical in a filter are ordered together thereby improving intra-thread parallelization thereby improving inter-thread parallelization, wherein the similarity between filters is based on the number of non-empty kernels in each filter and the number of kernels at identical positions with identical pattern identifiers”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations:
“A computer program product for compressing a deep neural network (DNN) model by DNN weight pruning and accelerating DNN execution in a mobile device to achieve real-time inference, said computer program product residing on a non-transitory computer readable medium having a plurality of instructions stored thereon which, when executed by a computer processor, cause that computer processor to”
“train the DNN model compressed in steps (a) and (b)”
“apply a compiler-assisted DNN acceleration framework to the DNN model trained in (c) to generate code to be executed on the mobile device, wherein step (d) comprises removing memory-level input load redundancy corresponding to the DNN model trained in (c)”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations:
“storing, in a memory, weights of the DNN model in a compact format that supports branch-less DNN execution”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” and “insignificant extra-solution activity”. Furthermore, the “storing” limitation recites the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 18,
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 18 is directed to a computer program product for compressing a deep neural network (DNN), which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein (d) includes converting the DNN model trained in (c) into one or more computational graphs”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“and performing one or more compiler optimizations based on the sparse convolution patterns for compressed DNN execution”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 19,
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 19 is directed to a computer program product for compressing a deep neural network (DNN), which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the one or more compiler optimizations includes performing a fine-grained Layerwise Representation (LR) to capture the sparse convolution patterns and the connectivity sparsity from (a) and (b)”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 18.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 18.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection applied under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant firstly asserts that steps (a)-(b) of independent claim 1 are not mentally performable because it requires processing each kernel in a DNN model with possibly millions of weights that must be processed. (“Remarks”, Pages 9-10). Applicant further asserts that the filter kernel reordering limitation is not mentally performable because it requires analyzing and comparing potentially thousands of filters across multiple layers (“Remarks”, Pages 10-11).
However, the claims do not recite “millions of weights” or “thousands of filters”. Rather, the claim recites “performing an intra-convolution kernel pruning…” and “performing inter-convolution kernel pruning…”, which merely involves removing values from a matrix, therefore being mentally performable with the assistance of pen and paper. Therefore, the claims recite at least the abstract ideas of performing kernel pruning.
Applicant further asserts that even if the claims were deemed to recite a judicial exception, they are integrated into a practical application (“Remarks”, Page 11). Specifically, Applicant asserts that the combination of performing the intra-convolution kernel pruning and the generation of code to execute a DNN on a mobile device reflects a specific technical improvement to mobile DNN execution, including a technical improvement to mobile computing technology, and specifically, real-time inference on mobile devices (“Remarks”, Page 12). Applicant further asserts that the “storing…” limitation is a specific technical implementation that enables branch-less execution, which is a particular improvement over conventional formats (“Remarks, Page 13). Applicant further asserts that the filter kernel reordering limitation represents a specific technical solution to a technical problem in mobile DNN acceleration (“Remarks”, Page 13).
However, even assuming the claims do recite an improvement, it would be in the abstract idea of “performing an intra-convolution kernel pruning…” and “performing inter-convolution kernel pruning”. As recited in the MPEP, an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. MPEP 2106.05(a). The use of a compiler to generate code to be executed on a mobile device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, the storing limitation recites the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Further, as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 1 above, the “filter kernel reordering” limitation is an abstract idea for similar reasons to the kernel pruning limitations. Therefore, the limitations, as written, do not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Regarding the rejection applied under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s amendments overcome the rejection.
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 KURT NICHOLAS PRESSLY whose telephone number is (703)756-4639. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Kamran Afshar can be reached at (571) 272-7796. 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.
/KURT NICHOLAS PRESSLY/Examiner, Art Unit 2125
/KAMRAN AFSHAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2125
Prosecution Insights