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 .
This office action is made final.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-21 are pending. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed on 4/1/2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of the previous office action, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant attempts to integrate the mental processes/math of the independent claims into a practical application, but fails to provide a clear technological improvement, because the claims do not clearly describe how new dimensions are being determined, or how tensors/weight kernels are being rearranged. Without a clear connection between the rearrangement/reshaping process and the hardware arrangement/shape, there are no additional elements that can integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application. The applicant is encouraged to further integrate the alleged benefit into the claim by more particularly describing how the reformatting is performed to cause higher utilization of MAC units.
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, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1,
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. Claim 1 recites: An apparatus, comprising… Claim 1 recites an apparatus or manufacture, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A prong 1: Does the claim recite a judicial exception? Claim 1 recites: reformat an input tensor of a layer in a neural network based on a configuration of the MAC circuitry… wherein reformatting the input tensor comprises: determining a width of a weight kernel of the layer based on the configuration of the MAC circuitry, determining a depth of the input tensor, the depth of the input tensor indicating a number of input channels of the layer (determining the dimensions of an tensor or a weight kernel “based on” some circuitry arrangement is a mental process), determining a new depth based on the width of the weight kernel and the depth of the input tensor (determining a new depth based on the kernel width and input depth is a mental process or mathematical calculation), and rearranging values in the input tensor to form a reformatted input tensor having the new depth, rearrange weights in the weight kernel to form a new kernel having the new depth (rearranging tensor values to change their shapes can be performed mentally with the aid of pen and paper)… These steps can be performed mentally.
Step 2A prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements? Do those additional elements,
considered individually and in combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Claim 1 recites: multiply-and-accumulate (MAC) circuitry, the MAC circuitry comprising MAC units; and processor circuitry to… the neural network comprising another layer, a tensor of the another layer having a different dimension from the input tensor,… and load values in the reformatted input tensor and weights in the new kernel into the MAC circuitry for a clock cycle, wherein the reformatting of the input tensor causes more MAC units in the MAC circuitry to be utilized in the clock cycle, wherein the reformatted input tensor has a different dimension from the input tensor, and wherein at least part of the reformatted input tensor is to be processed by the more MAC units in the MAC circuitry. Describing MAC circuitry comprising MAC units is an additional element specifying a field of use (i.e., devices with MAC units only) without significantly more. Describing processor circuitry to reformat an input tensor based on the configuration of the MAC circuitry is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components without significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Loading values of the reformatted tensors into the MAC circuitry for a clock cycle is extra-solution activity of data outputting that does not add a meaningful limitation to the tensor reshaping apparatus. Stating that the reformatting of the input tensor causes more MAC units to be utilized in the clock cycle is reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome (i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished) and is also instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Describing that the neural network has a layer that does not have the same dimensions of the input layer is attempt to use the generic neural network by applying the abstract idea, without placing limits on how the neural network operates. Thus, the limitation represents no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea which is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” to the recited judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Adding that the reformatted tensor has a different dimension from the input tensor and that the tensor is to be processed by more MAC units is still reciting the idea of a solution or outcome, omitting details on how a solution/outcome is to be accomplished (MPEP 2106.05(f)) (Step 2A prong 2: NO).
Step 2B: Do the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception? These elements are recited at such a high level of generality that they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since they limit the field of use without significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(h)), provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) or only amount to data outputting without significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(g)). These limitations taken alone or in combination, fail to provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 recite limitations which further narrow the abstract idea by specifying more details of the mental process performed by the apparatus (Claim 2, padding a tensor is a mental process; Claim 3, applying the tensor reshaping based on weight kernel stride is a mental process; Claim 5, aligning memory is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components; Claim 6, using a tensor representing an image as input to a neural network is insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering or limiting the field of use without significantly more; Claim 7, rearranging a second weight kernel is repeating the mental process, and loading weights into the MAC circuitry is insignificant extra-solution activity of data outputting).
Claim 8 is an apparatus similar to the apparatus of claim 1 and is rejected on the same grounds – see above.
Claim 15 is a method with steps similar to the operations carried out by the apparatus of claim 1 and is rejected on the same grounds – see above.
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected based on a similar rationale as claim 2.
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected based on a similar rationale as claim 3.
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected based on a similar rationale as claim 5.
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected based on a similar rationale as claim 6.
Claims 14 and 21 are rejected based on a similar rationale as claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-21 are allowed over prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRISON CHAN YOUNG KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-0713. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Cesar Paula can be reached on (571) 272-4128. 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.
/HARRISON C KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2145
/CESAR B PAULA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2145
Prosecution Insights