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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors the applicant may become aware of in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-6 and 13-16 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(a) for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention or discovery.
Claim 3 recites “the regular array pairs” in line 7 and 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner is interpreting as “the N-1 regular array pairs”. Claims 4, 5, 13, 14, and 15 are objected to for the same reason.
Dependent claims are objected to for the same reasons.
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 7-10 and 17-19 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.
Clim 7 recites “the irregular tensor data structure”. It is not clear whether it is referring to the irregular tensor data structure in claim 1 line 3 or claim 7 lines 12-13. Claim 17 is rejected for the same reason.
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reason.
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 3-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 11:
Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
The claim recites a machine.
Step 2 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 11 recites “determine a sequence to be processed, and determine data structure information in the sequence to be processed, wherein the sequence to be processed has an irregular tensor data structure, and the data structure information includes tensor dimensions and element information in tensors of each dimension; convert the irregular tensor data structure into a regular tensor data structure by regularizing the irregular tensor data structure for dimensionality reduction and determining a correlation between respective elements of each dimension, based on the tensor dimensions and the element information in tensors of each dimension; and process the sequence to be processed, based on the regular tensor data structure; in response to the irregular tensor data structure including N tensor dimensions, convert the irregular tensor data structure into N-1 regular array pairs based on the element information in the tensors of each dimension, where N is greater than or equal to 2”.
Under Prong One of Step 2A of the current eligibility guidance (see MPEP 2106), the limitations above cover mathematical calculations, relationships, and/or formulas. They also cover mental steps and can be performed using pen and paper (See, for example, specification paragraph 40 onwards).
Step 2A Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 11 additionally recites a memory device and a processor that performs the steps. However, these elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. generic computing components performing generic computing functions). As such, the claim amounts to no more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Such elements fail to provide a meaningful limitation on the claimed steps. Additionally, the claim recites “store processor-execution instructions”. However, storing data is merely data gathering, an activity that is listed in MPEP 2106.05(g) as an insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim additionally recites “so as to speed up processing and improve efficiency of the graphic processor to process the sequence”. This is merely recited as a result of performing the abstract idea. The recitation of graphic processor is merely linking the abstract idea to a technological environment. The limitation “process the sequence to be processed based, on the regular tensor data structure” which can also be considered an insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation “determine a sequence to be processed and determine data structure information in the sequence to be processed” can also be considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus claim 11 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Under step 2B, the claims do 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, using a generic system comprising a processor and a memory storing processor-executable instructions amounts to no more than mere instructions to an exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, the additional elements of “store processor-executable instructions” are an insignificant extra-solution activity, which is well-understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Also, “determine a sequence to be processed, and determine data structure information in the sequence to be processed” can be considered an insignificant extra-solution activity, which is well-understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). The additional elements of processing the sequence to be processed, based on regular tensor data structure is also well-understood, routine and conventional. As an example, “Accelerating sparse matrix-matrix multiplication with GPU Tensor Cores”, “NVIDIA Tensor Core Programmability, Performance & Precision”, “GPU Tensor Cores for fast Arithmetic Reductions” and “Programming Tensor Cores in CUDA 9” disclose GPUs processing tensor data.
Accordingly claim 11 is not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 13,
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 13 recites “convert the irregular tensor data structure into N-1 regular array pairs based on the element information in the tensors of each dimension by: determining a number of elements in the irregular tensor data structure according to the element information in the tensors of each dimension; determining a first array in the regular array pairs, element values in the first array being elements in the irregular tensor data structure, and an array length of the first array being the number of elements in the irregular tensor data structure; and determining at least one of a second array and a third array in the regular array pairs based on the first array, wherein the second array is used to represent row information of each of the elements in the first array in the irregular tensor data structure; and the third array is used to represent a starting position of the elements in each row of the irregular tensor data structure in the first array, and the array length of the first array”. Under Prong One of Step 2A of the current eligibility guidance (see MPEP 2106), the limitation covers mathematical calculations, relationships, and/or formulas. This is also a mental step and can be performed using pen and paper (See, for example, specification paragraph 40 onwards). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Claim 13 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B – Claim 13 does not recite any additional elements.
Accordingly Claim 13 is not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 14,
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 14 recites “determine the second array in the regular array pairs based on the first array by: determining a row value to which each element value in the first array belongs in the irregular tensor data structure; and using the row value as the element value corresponding to each row in the second array to form a second array whose array length is the number of elements in the irregular tensor data structure”. Under Prong One of Step 2A of the current eligibility guidance (see MPEP 2106), the limitation covers mathematical calculations, relationships, and/or formulas. This is also a mental step and can be performed using pen and paper (See, for example, specification paragraph 40 onwards). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Claim 14 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B – Claim 14 does not recite any additional elements.
Accordingly Claim 14 is not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 15,
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 15 recites “determine the third array in the regular array pairs based on the first array by: determining a row starting element in each row in the irregular tensor data structure, and determining a row value corresponding to the row starting element in the first array; and using the row value corresponding to the row starting element in the first array as the element value in the third array in order of rows, and using the array length of the first array as the last element value of the third array”. Under Prong One of Step 2A of the current eligibility guidance (see MPEP 2106), the limitation covers mathematical calculations, relationships, and/or formulas. This is also a mental step and can be performed using pen and paper (See, for example, specification paragraph 40 onwards). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Claim 15 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B – Claim 15 does not recite any additional elements.
Accordingly Claim 15 is not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 16,
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 16 recites “wherein when the row starting element corresponding to the current row in the third array is empty, the element value of an adjacent row in the third array is used as the element value of the current row”. Under Prong One of Step 2A of the current eligibility guidance (see MPEP 2106), the limitation covers mathematical calculations, relationships, and/or formulas. This is also a mental step and can be performed using pen and paper (See, for example, specification paragraph 40 onwards). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Claim 16 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B – Claim 16 does not recite any additional elements.
Accordingly Claim 16 is not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 17,
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 17 recites “prior to determining the sequence to be processed, the processor is further configured to: determine a sequence processing task, and … determine the sequence to be processed by: in response to the presence of a finite state acceptor in the sequence processing task, determining a number of states in the finite state acceptor and an arc data structure corresponding to each state; and based on the number of states and an arc corresponding to the state, representing the finite state acceptor by using a sequence with an irregular tensor data structure to obtain the sequence to be processed. Under Prong One of Step 2A of the current eligibility guidance (see MPEP 2106), the limitation covers mental steps and can be performed using pen and paper. The claim further recites “wherein the number of rows in the irregular tensor data structure is determined by the number of states, and the elements in each row are determined based on the arc data structure in the state”. Under Prong One of Step 2A of the current eligibility guidance (see MPEP 2106), the limitation covers mental steps and can be performed using pen and paper. The limitation also covers mathematical calculations, relationships, and/or formulas Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Claim 17 does not recite any additional elements. “Processor” is already addressed in claim 11. The limitation “wherein the task is a task for controlling the graphics processor to perform sequence processing” merely links the abstract idea to a technological environment.
Step 2B – Claim 17 does not recite any additional elements.
Accordingly Claim 17 is not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 18,
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 18 recites “in response to the presence of a finite state transducer in the sequence processing task, generate a fourth array by using an output label of the finite state transducer as an additional attribute of the finite state acceptor, a number of elements in the fourth array being the same as a number of arc data structures in the state acceptor”. Under Prong One of Step 2A of the current eligibility guidance (see MPEP 2106), the limitation covers mathematical calculations, relationships, and/or formulas. This is also a mental step and can be performed using pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Claim 18 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B – Claim 18 does not recite any additional elements.
Accordingly Claim 18 is not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 19,
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 19 recites “in response to the irregular tensor data structure including N tensor dimensions, convert the irregular tensor data structure into N-1 regular array pairs based on the element information, where N is greater than or equal to 2”. Under Prong One of Step 2A of the current eligibility guidance (see MPEP 2106), the limitation covers mathematical calculations, relationships, and/or formulas. This is also a mental step and can be performed using pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Claim 19 further recites “save the mapping relationship”. However, storing data is merely data gathering, an activity that is listed in MPEP 2106.05(g) as an insignificant extra-solution activity.
Step 2B - The additional elements “save the mapping relationship” is an insignificant extra-solution activity, which is well-understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Accordingly Claim 19 is not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 1 and 3-10 are not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101 for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 20:
Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
The claim recites an article of manufacture.
Step 2 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 20 recites “determining a sequence to be processed, which has an irregular tensor data structure; determining data structure information in the sequence to be processed, where the data structure information includes tensor dimensions and element information in tensors of each dimension; converting the irregular tensor data structure into a regular tensor data structure by reqularizinq the irreqular tensor data structure for dimensionality reduction and determining a correlation between respective elements of each dimension, based on the tensor dimension and the element information, wherein said converting the irregular tensor data structure into a regular tensor data structure based on the tensor dimensions and the element information in the tensors of each dimension comprises: when the irregular tensor data structure includes N tensor dimensions, converting the irregular tensor data structure into N-1 regular array pairs based on the element information in the tensors of each dimension, where N is greater than or equal to 2”.
Under Prong One of Step 2A of the current eligibility guidance (see MPEP 2106), the limitations above cover mathematical calculations, relationships, and/or formulas. They also cover mental steps and can be performed using pen and paper (See, for example, specification paragraph 40 onwards).
Step 2A Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 20 additionally recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon instructions for execution by a processor to implement a sequence processing method, applied to a graphics processor. However, these elements are recited at a high level of generality. As such, the claim amounts to no more than applying the exception using generic computer components to a processor. Such elements fail to provide a meaningful limitation on the claimed steps. Additionally, the claim recites “having stored thereon instructions”. However, storing data is merely data gathering, an activity that is listed in MPEP 2106.05(g) as an insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim additionally recites “so as to speed up processing and improve efficiency of the graphic processor to process the sequence”. This is merely recited as a result of performing the abstract idea. The recitation of graphic processor is merely linking the abstract idea to a technological environment. The limitation “determining a sequence… determining data structure information…” can also be considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation “processing the sequence to be processed based on the regular tensor data structure” can also be considered an insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus claim 20 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Under step 2B, the claims do 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, the claim amounts applying the abstract idea to a processor and is no more than mere instructions to implement an exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, the additional element of “having stored thereon instructions” is an insignificant extra-solution activity, which is well-understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). The additional elements of “determining a sequence to be processed… determining data structure information…” can also be considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, which is well-understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). The additional element of processing the sequence to be processed, based on regular tensor data structure is also well-understood, routine and conventional. As an example, “Accelerating sparse matrix-matrix multiplication with GPU Tensor Cores”, “NVIDIA Tensor Core Programmability, Performance & Precision”, “GPU Tensor Cores for fast Arithmetic Reductions” and “Programming Tensor Cores in CUDA 9” disclose GPUs processing tensor data.
Accordingly claim 20 is not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/20/2026, have been considered.
The Applicant’s argues that “regularizing the irregular tensor data structure for dimensionality reduction and determining a correlation between respective elements of each dimension” cannot be practically applied in the human mind, nor is it a mathematical concept or method of organizing human activities. The Applicant further argues that this function requires large data collection and numerical analysis using processors, and intensive and automated physical activities performed by machinery. This argument is not persuasive. These limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationships, and/or formulas. They also cover mental steps and can be performed using pen and paper (See, for example, specification paragraph 40 onwards). The Applicant provides no evidence and/or details but does indicate that these are directed to numerical analysis which supports the claim being directed to mathematical calculation/relationship.
The Applicant argues that “processing…” and “and improve efficiency of the graphic processor to process the sequence”. The Applicant argues that the claims are eligible under step 2A as the claim is integrated into a practical application. However, as addressed in the rejection above, processing is part of the abstract idea and the improving efficiency is merely recited as a result of the abstract idea.
The Applicant further argues that the claimed subject is integrated into a practical, technological application as they are concrete implementation mechanisms. However, the Applicant provides no details and merely makes a statement. The argument is thus not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that claim 1 is applied to a specific application where a hardware equipment such as processing circuits and machinery are employed. This argument is not persuasive. Claim 1 does not recite any specific circuit or specific machinery. It recites a graphics processor where is merely linking to a technological field.
The Applicant further argues that this functionality improves the efficiency of the GPU. However, the limitations that the Applicant points to are part of the abstract idea. The judicial exception alone cannot provide an improvement (See MPEP 2106.05(a)).
The Applicant argues that the claimed method is building sophisticated models. However, that is not the criteria for determining patent eligibility under 35 USC 101. The Applicant further argues that the claimed method provides actionable items that cannot be commonly performed by human. However, as addressed in the rejection above, some of the steps are categorized as mathematical relationships/calculations.
The Applicant argues that the claims are patent-eligible as the steps improve the functioning of processing circuits and solve the technological problem of inadequacy of conventional methods. Also, the steps are not well-understood, routine, or conventional and are significantly more. This argument is not persuasive. As per MPEP 2106.05(a), a judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. As made clear by the courts, the “novelty” of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the §101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.
The Applicant argues that the specific technical measures in claims 11 and 20 do not cover mathematical calculations, relationships, and/or formula, and they do not cover mental steps. However, the Applicant is not addressing the rejection. The GPU was not categorized as covering mathematical calculations, relationships, and/or formula or as a mental step.
The Applicant argues that the claims are directed to a specific technological improvement. This argument is not persuasive for the same reasons as above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jyoti Mehta whose telephone number is (571)270-3995. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am-4 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Cottingham can be reached on (571) 272 3702. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JYOTI MEHTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2183
