DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s communication filed 16 October 2025, in response to the Office Action mailed 4 June 2025. The applicant’s remarks and any amendments to the claims or specification have been considered, with the results that follow.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mathematical concepts and/or mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as described below.
Step 1 for all claims:
Under the first part of the analysis, claims 8-14 recite a method, claims 15-20 recite a manufacture and claims 1-4, 6, and 7 recite an apparatus. Accordingly, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention and the analysis proceeds to Step 2A, prongs 1 and 2, and Step 2B, as described below.
As per claim 1:
Under step 2A, prong 1, the claim recites an abstract idea including the following mathematical concept elements:
perform global neural network processing based on the first input vector and the first set of global parameters – this is describing mathematical calculations (see, e.g., paras. [0093] and [0100] of the specification as filed).
perform local neural network processing based on the second set of local parameters and a previous activation state vector of the core – this is describing mathematical calculations (see, e.g., paras. [0096] and [0100] of the specification as filed).
and generate a result vector for distribution to the plurality of cores – this is describing mathematical calculations (see, e.g., paras. [0099]-[0100] of the specification as filed).
If a claim, under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mathematical relationship between variables or numbers, a numerical formula or equation, or a mathematical calculation, it will be considered as falling within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim, under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers concepts that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, it will be considered as falling within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, performing mathematical calculations using a formula that could be practically performed in the human mind may be considered to fall within both the mathematical concepts grouping and the mental process grouping. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Accordingly, at step 2A, prong one, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
a neural network processing apparatus – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
comprising: a plurality of cores – this amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
and one or more memories – this amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
configured to store a first set of global parameters and a second set of local parameters – this is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as data gathering/storage that is limited to a particular type of data, generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) and (h), and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
wherein each core comprises logic – this amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
configured to: obtain a first input vector – this is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as data gathering/storage that is limited to a particular type of data, generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) and (h), and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
and broadcast the result vector to each other core of the plurality of cores – this is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as data gathering/storage that is limited to a particular type of data, generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) and (h), and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Accordingly, at step 2A, prong two, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the claim as a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
a neural network processing apparatus – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
comprising: a plurality of cores – this amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
and one or more memories – this amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
configured to store a first set of global parameters and a second set of local parameters – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). The courts have also found limitations directed to obtaining and storing information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” "electronic record keeping,” and "storing and retrieving information in memory.”
wherein each core comprises logic – this amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
configured to: obtain a first input vector – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). The courts have also found limitations directed to obtaining and storing information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” "electronic record keeping,” and "storing and retrieving information in memory.”
and broadcast the result vector to each other core of the plurality of cores – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). The courts have also found limitations directed to obtaining and storing information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” "electronic record keeping,” and "storing and retrieving information in memory.”
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 2:
Under step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the first set of global parameters comprises a portion of a global matrix associated with each core of the plurality of cores – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Accordingly, at step 2A, prong two, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the claim as a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the first set of global parameters comprises a portion of a global matrix associated with each core of the plurality of cores – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 3:
The claim recites the following additional mathematical concept and/or mental process elements:
sparsify a dense vector to produce a resulting sparse vector – this is describing a mathematical calculation (see, e.g., para [0084] of the specification as filed). Alternatively/additionally – a data scientist can take a dense vector and add empty/null elements to the vector to create a sparse vector.
Accordingly, at step 2A, prong one, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein each core further comprises logic configured to – this amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, at step 2A, prong two, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the claim as a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein each core further comprises logic configured to – this amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 4:
The claim recites the following additional mathematical concept and/or mental process elements:
create the global activation vector based on the one or more portions of the global activation vector from the other cores of the plurality of cores – this is describing a mathematical function of combining vectors (see, e.g., paras. [0095] and [0107] of the specification as filed). Alternatively/additionally – the data scientist combines the global activation portions into one global activation vector.
and perform the global neural network processing based on the global activation vector – this is describing mathematical calculations (see, e.g., paras. [0093] and [0100] of the specification as filed).
Accordingly, at step 2A, prong one, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
each core further comprises logic configured to – this amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
obtain one or more portions of a global activation vector from other cores of the plurality of cores – this is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as data gathering/storage that is limited to a particular type of data, generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) and (h), and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Accordingly, at step 2A, prong two, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the claim as a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
each core further comprises logic configured to – this amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
obtain one or more portions of a global activation vector from other cores of the plurality of cores – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). The courts have also found limitations directed to obtaining and storing information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” "electronic record keeping,” and "storing and retrieving information in memory.”
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 6:
The claim recites the following additional mathematical concept and/or mental process elements:
update the previous activation state vector of the core based on the result vector – this is describing a mathematical calculation (see, e.g., paras [0107]-[0110] of the specification as filed).
Accordingly, at step 2A, prong one, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein each core further comprises logic configured to – this amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, at step 2A, prong two, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the claim as a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein each core further comprises logic configured to – this amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 7:
Under step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein: the one or more memories comprises a first memory and a second memory – this amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
the first memory of the one or more memories is exclusively associated with a first core of the plurality of cores – this amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
and is configured to store a first portion of the first set of global parameters and a second portion of the second set of local parameters associated with the first core – this is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as data gathering/storage that is limited to a particular type of data, generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) and (h), and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
and the second memory of the one or more memories is exclusively associated with a second core of the plurality of cores different from the first core of the plurality of cores – this amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
and is configured to store a third portion of the first set of global parameters different from the first portion and a fourth portion of the second set of local parameters different from the second portion associated with the second core – this is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as data gathering/storage that is limited to a particular type of data, generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) and (h), and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Accordingly, at step 2A, prong two, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the claim as a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein: the one or more memories comprises a first memory and a second memory – this amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
the first memory of the one or more memories is exclusively associated with a first core of the plurality of cores – this amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
and is configured to store a first portion of the first set of global parameters and a second portion of the second set of local parameters associated with the first core – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). The courts have also found limitations directed to obtaining and storing information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” "electronic record keeping,” and "storing and retrieving information in memory.”
and the second memory of the one or more memories is exclusively associated with a second core of the plurality of cores different from the first core of the plurality of cores – this amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
and is configured to store a third portion of the first set of global parameters different from the first portion and a fourth portion of the second set of local parameters different from the second portion associated with the second core – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). The courts have also found limitations directed to obtaining and storing information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” "electronic record keeping,” and "storing and retrieving information in memory.”
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 8:
Under step 2A, prong 1, the claim recites an abstract idea including the following mathematical concept elements:
calculating an updated dense activation vector based on the sparse activation vector, the dense activation vector, and the portion of the global weight matrix, and the local matrix – this is describing mathematical calculations (see, e.g., paras. [0107]-[0110] and fig. 13 of the specification as filed).
calculating a portion of an updated sparse activation vector based on the updated dense activation vector – this is describing mathematical calculations (see, e.g., paras. [0107]-[0110] and fig. 13 of the specification as filed).
If a claim, under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mathematical relationship between variables or numbers, a numerical formula or equation, or a mathematical calculation, it will be considered as falling within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim, under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers concepts that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, it will be considered as falling within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, performing mathematical calculations using a formula that could be practically performed in the human mind may be considered to fall within both the mathematical concepts grouping and the mental process grouping. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Accordingly, at step 2A, prong one, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
a method of operating a core of a multicore neural network architecture comprising – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
receiving a sparse activation vector – this is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as data gathering/storage that is limited to a particular type of data, generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) and (h), and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
retrieving a dense activation vector, a portion of a global weight matrix, and a local matrix – this is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as data gathering/storage that is limited to a particular type of data, generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) and (h), and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
and broadcasting the updated sparse activation vector to other cores of the multicore neural network architecture – this is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as data gathering/storage that is limited to a particular type of data, generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) and (h), and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Accordingly, at step 2A, prong two, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the claim as a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
a method of operating a core of a multicore neural network architecture comprising – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
receiving a sparse activation vector – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). The courts have also found limitations directed to obtaining and storing information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” "electronic record keeping,” and "storing and retrieving information in memory.”
retrieving a dense activation vector, a portion of a global weight matrix, and a local matrix – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). The courts have also found limitations directed to obtaining and storing information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” "electronic record keeping,” and "storing and retrieving information in memory.”
and broadcasting the updated sparse activation vector to other cores of the multicore neural network architecture – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). The courts have also found limitations directed to obtaining and storing information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” "electronic record keeping,” and "storing and retrieving information in memory.”
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 9:
The claim recites the following additional mathematical concept elements:
wherein calculating the portion of the updated sparse activation vector comprises applying a rectified linear activation function to the updated dense activation vector – this is describing a mathematical calculation using a specific mathematical function (a rectified linear activation function).
Accordingly, at step 2A, prong one, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include any additional elements, under step 2A prong two, or step 2B, except those listed above in prior claim(s). Accordingly, at step 2A, prong two, the claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d). Furthermore, at step 2B, the claim elements both individually and in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 10:
Under step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the dense activation vector, the portion of the global weight matrix, and the local matrix are retrieved – this is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as data gathering/storage that is limited to a particular type of data, generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) and (h), and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
from a memory associated with the core – this amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, at step 2A, prong two, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the claim as a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the dense activation vector, the portion of the global weight matrix, and the local matrix are retrieved – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). The courts have also found limitations directed to obtaining and storing information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” "electronic record keeping,” and "storing and retrieving information in memory.”
from a memory associated with the core – this amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 11:
Under step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the memory is not associated with the other cores of the multicore neural network architecture – this amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, at step 2A, prong two, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the claim as a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the memory is not associated with the other cores of the multicore neural network architecture – this amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 12:
Under step 2A, prong 1, the claim recites an abstract idea including the following mathematical concept and/or mental process elements:
wherein calculating the portion of the updated sparse activation vector comprises: concatenating a sparse input vector and a sparse global activation vector to form a concatenated sparse vector – this is describing mathematical calculations (see, e.g., paras. [0061]-[0068] and [0107] of the specification as filed). Alternatively/additionally – the data scientist concatenates vectors to form a combined vector.
multiplying the portion of the global weight matrix with the concatenated sparse vector creating a first intermediate data structure – this is describing mathematical calculations (vector-matrix multiplication).
multiplying the local matrix with the dense activation vector creating a second intermediate data structure – this is describing mathematical calculations (vector-matrix multiplication).
performing a first sigmoid function on a first sum of a first section of the first intermediate data structure added to a second section of the second intermediate data structure creating a third intermediate data structure – this is describing mathematical calculations (sigmoid function).
performing a second sigmoid function on a second sum of a third section of the first intermediate data structure added to a fourth section of the second intermediate data structure creating a fourth intermediate data structure – this is describing mathematical calculations (sigmoid function).
performing a hyperbolic tangent function on a third sum of a fifth section of the first intermediate data structure and a first product of the third intermediate data structure and a sixth section of the second intermediate data structure creating a fifth intermediate data structure – this is describing mathematical calculations (tanh).
and calculating the updated dense activation vector based on a fourth sum of a second product of the fourth intermediate data structure and the sparse global activation vector and a third product of the fifth intermediate data structure and a difference of one and the fourth intermediate data structure – this is describing mathematical calculations (see, e.g., para. [0100] of the specification as filed).
Accordingly, at step 2A, prong one, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include any additional elements, under step 2A prong two, or step 2B, except those listed above in prior claim(s). Accordingly, at step 2A, prong two, the claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d). Furthermore, at step 2B, the claim elements both individually and in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 13:
Under step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
receiving a sparse input vector and the sparse activation vector, from a broadcast communication to a plurality of cores of the multicore neural network architecture – this is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as data gathering/storage that is limited to a particular type of data, generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) and (h), and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Accordingly, at step 2A, prong two, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the claim as a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
receiving a sparse input vector and the sparse activation vector, from a broadcast communication to a plurality of cores of the multicore neural network architecture – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). The courts have also found limitations directed to obtaining and storing information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” "electronic record keeping,” and "storing and retrieving information in memory.”
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 14:
Under step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein broadcasting the updated sparse activation vector to the other cores of the multicore neural network architecture occurs asynchronous to broadcasts from the other cores – this is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as data gathering/storage that is limited to a particular type of data, generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) and (h), and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Accordingly, at step 2A, prong two, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the claim as a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein broadcasting the updated sparse activation vector to the other cores of the multicore neural network architecture occurs asynchronous to broadcasts from the other cores – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). The courts have also found limitations directed to obtaining and storing information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” "electronic record keeping,” and "storing and retrieving information in memory.”
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 15:
Under step 2A, prong 1, the claim recites an abstract idea including the following mathematical concept and/or mental process elements:
perform global neural network processing based on the first sparse vector and a first set of global parameters – this is describing mathematical calculations (see, e.g., paras. [0093] and [0100] of the specification as filed).
perform local neural network processing based on a second set of local parameters and a dense vector that is specific to each core of a plurality of cores – this is describing mathematical calculations (see, e.g., paras. [0096] and [0100] of the specification as filed).
and sparsify the dense vector to generate a second sparse vector – this is describing mathematical calculations (see, e.g., para. [0084] of the specification as filed). Alternatively/additionally – a data scientist adds empty/null values to a vector to make it sparser.
If a claim, under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mathematical relationship between variables or numbers, a numerical formula or equation, or a mathematical calculation, it will be considered as falling within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim, under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers concepts that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, it will be considered as falling within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, performing mathematical calculations using a formula that could be practically performed in the human mind may be considered to fall within both the mathematical concepts grouping and the mental process grouping. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Accordingly, at step 2A, prong one, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
a non-transitory computer readable apparatus comprising a storage medium having one or more computer programs stored thereon – this amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
the one or more computer programs, when executed by a processing apparatus, being configured to – this amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
obtain a first sparse vector – this is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as data gathering/storage that is limited to a particular type of data, generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) and (h), and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
and broadcast the second sparse vector to the plurality of cores – this is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as data gathering/storage that is limited to a particular type of data, generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) and (h), and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Accordingly, at step 2A, prong two, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the claim as a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
a non-transitory computer readable apparatus comprising a storage medium having one or more computer programs stored thereon – this amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
the one or more computer programs, when executed by a processing apparatus, being configured to – this amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
obtain a first sparse vector – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). The courts have also found limitations directed to obtaining and storing information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” "electronic record keeping,” and "storing and retrieving information in memory.”
and broadcast the second sparse vector to the plurality of cores – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). The courts have also found limitations directed to obtaining and storing information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” "electronic record keeping,” and "storing and retrieving information in memory.”
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 16:
Under step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the first sparse vector comprises an input vector – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
and the first set of global parameters comprises a portion of a global matrix associated with a first core – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Accordingly, at step 2A, prong two, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the claim as a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the first sparse vector comprises an input vector – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
and the first set of global parameters comprises a portion of a global matrix associated with a first core – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 17:
Under step 2A, prong 1, the claim recites an abstract idea including the following mathematical concept and/or mental process elements:
wherein sparsifying the dense vector comprises skipping elements or adding null elements to the dense vector – this is describing mathematical calculations (see, e.g., para. [0084] of the specification as filed). Alternatively/additionally – the data scientist skips elements of the vector or adds empty/null elements.
Accordingly, at step 2A, prong one, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include any additional elements, under step 2A prong two, or step 2B, except those listed above in prior claim(s). Accordingly, at step 2A, prong two, the claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d). Furthermore, at step 2B, the claim elements both individually and in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 18:
Under step 2A, prong 1, the claim recites an abstract idea including the following mathematical concept and/or mental process elements:
wherein sparsifying the dense vector comprises applying a rectified linear activation function to the dense vector – this is describing mathematical calculations (the rectified linear activation function – see, e.g., para. [0084] of the specification as filed).
Accordingly, at step 2A, prong one, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include any additional elements, under step 2A prong two, or step 2B, except those listed above in prior claim(s). Accordingly, at step 2A, prong two, the claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d). Furthermore, at step 2B, the claim elements both individually and in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 19:
Under step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein each core further comprises logic configured to – this amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
broadcast the second sparse vector to each other core of the plurality of cores – this is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as data gathering/storage that is limited to a particular type of data, generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) and (h), and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Accordingly, at step 2A, prong two, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the claim as a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein each core further comprises logic configured to – this amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
broadcast the second sparse vector to each other core of the plurality of cores – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). The courts have also found limitations directed to obtaining and storing information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” "electronic record keeping,” and "storing and retrieving information in memory.”
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 19:
Under step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the one or more computer programs are further configured to – this amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
broadcast the second sparse vector to the plurality of cores – this is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as data gathering/storage that is limited to a particular type of data, generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) and (h), and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Accordingly, at step 2A, prong two, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the claim as a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the one or more computer programs are further configured to – this amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
broadcast the second sparse vector to the plurality of cores – this amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). The courts have also found limitations directed to obtaining and storing information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” "electronic record keeping,” and "storing and retrieving information in memory.”
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Arguments
The objections to the drawings have been withdrawn due to the replacement sheets filed 16 October 2025.
The objection to claim 7 has been withdrawn due to the amendments filed.
The rejections of claim 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been withdrawn due to the amendments filed.
Applicant’s arguments, see the remarks, filed 16 October 2025, with respect to the teachings of Sather and broadcasting the result vector directly from the core to each other core of the plurality of cores have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-4 and 6-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 16 October 2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1, as a whole, “integrates the calculations into an improvement to technology, specifically neural network technology.” Applicant then argues that the specification, in paragraphs [0044]-[0046] and [0050] set forth a number of improvements.
However, it appears that any benefits to the computer itself are based solely on the use of an improvement to the abstract idea(s), using generic computer components to apply the abstract idea(s). he Federal Circuit has also indicated that mere automation of manual processes or increasing the speed of a process, where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality. FairWarning IP, LLC v. latric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Federal Circuit has also indicated that a claim must include more than conventional implementation on generic components or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264-65, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208-09 (Fed. Cir. 2016); TLI Communications LLC v. AVAuto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 612-613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1747-48 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, to find a valid improvement to a computer or technology the specification must disclose the improvement and the claim must include the necessary components to realize the improvement. MPEP 2106.05(d)(1). The claims of the instant application do not appear to disclose how the claimed invention “synergistically [leverages] locality, sparsity, and distributed scheduling to enable neural network processing within embedded hardware applications,” “[minimizes] data transfers and parameter storage requirements,” or provides “hardware-aware mapping and partitioning”, etc., as described by applicant’s remarks/specification.
Applicant also argues that the “distinction of parameters and sharing certain data between cores” illustrates these improvements, but it is not clear how.
Applicant also argues that the claimed invention provides improvements similar to the improvements in Enfish.
However, the claimed invention is not similar to that described in Enfish, and does not appear to provide the same/similar improvements.
Applicant also argues that the claimed cores are not generic, but comprise specific logic.
However, as described in the rejections, the core logic is recited only in terms of its mathematical function (see above). Therefore, performing the mathematical calculations by “a plurality of cores” amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Conclusion
The following is a summary of the treatment and status of all claims in the application as recommended by M.P.E.P. 707.07(i): claim 5 is cancelled; claims 1-4 and 6-20 are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nurvitadhi (US 2018/0189234 – cited in an IDS) – discloses a hardware accelerator for sparse matrix-vector multiplication.
Chu (US 2021/0200610 – cited in an IDS) – discloses a system for distributed, parallel processing including sparsification of dense gradient vectors.
Feng (US 11,748,666) – discloses a system including memory partitions to store global parameters and sharing parameter memory/partitions for groups of CPUs/cores.
Nair (US 11,599,181) – discloses a system for CNN operations including storing portions of filter- and activation matrices in local memories.
Cassidy (US 2021/0209450) – discloses compressed weights distributed to multiple cores, including local activation and weight memories and distributing portions of global weights.
Andrei (US 2020/0293367) – discloses a system utilizing local memory sharing between kernels, including local and global memories for storing activation vector/matrix values.
Sather (US 12,136,039) – discloses a neural network computation fabric comprising a plurality of dot product cores and global channel segments.
Socher (US 2017/0024645) – discloses gated recurrent units (GRU) or LSTM that can be used for RNN architectures using episodic memory and can include concatenation of input vectors.
Lamb (US 2019/0087713) – discloses compression of sparse deep convolutional network weights, including broadcasting activations to each MAC element of an array of elements.
Moradi et al. (A Scalable Multicore Architecture With Heterogeneous Memory Structures for Dynamic Neuromorphic Asynchronous Processors (DYNAPs), Feb 2018, pgs. 106-122) – discloses a multicore processor that combines mesh and hierarchical routing for broadcasting between cores using a combination of point-to-point and multi-cast routing.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, that support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
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 GEORGE GIROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-9769. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Omar Fernandez Rivas can be reached at 571-272-2589. 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.
/GEORGE GIROUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128