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 is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). See the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 below.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites contingent limitations “generating an input feature map vector for a plurality of input feature map blocks based on a number of channels of the input feature map being less than a number of reference channels, performing a convolution operation between the input feature map vector…, generating an output feature map based on the convolution operation”. These limitations are contingent because they recite steps that are to be performed if the condition is met. The input feature map vector needs to be generated if the number of channels of the input feature map are less than a number of reference channels. Therefore, the BRI of claim 1 does not require these limitations and requires only “A method of generating an output feature map based on an input feature map”.
Due to the contingent limitations in claim 1, the BRI of claims 2-7 and 9-11 is the same as that of claim 1.
Claim 25 recites contingent limitations “adjusting the convolution operation scheduling based on at least one of a number of channels of an input feature map and a number of channels of an output feature map being less than a number of reference channels, performing a convolution… based on the adjusted convolution operation scheduling.. generating the output feature map based on the convolution operation…”. These limitations are contingent because they recite steps that are to be performed if the condition is met. The adjusting of the convolution operation scheduling needs to be performed if at least one of a number of channels of an input feature map and a number of channels of an output feature map are less than a number of reference channels. Therefore, the BRI of claim 25 does not require these limitations and requires only “An operating method of a Neural Processing Unit device that performs a convolution operation based on convolution operation scheduling”.
Due to the contingent limitations in claim 25, the BRI of claims 26, 28 and 30 is the same as that of claim 25.
Claim Construction
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “vector generator configured to generate ….” In claim 13, “the vector generator generates the … “ in claim 18, and “a weight map generator configured to generate…” in claim 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. These structure of the vector generator and the weight map generator does not appear to be present in the specification/drawings.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-7, 9-11, 13, 14, 18, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong One: The claim recites “generating an output feature map based on an input feature map”. Such limitation covers mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula (See Specifications Paragraph 54-56, Fig. 4, 5). The limitation is also directed to a mental step that can be reasonably performed with the aid of pen and paper. The claim is thus directed to an abstract idea. Based on the BRI of the claim, the claim does not require any other limitations. Even if the BRI included the other limitations, these limitations are directed to mathematical calculations, relationships, and/or formula and also directed to mental steps. The claim is thus directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: The claim does not recite any additional elements. Thus, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 is thus not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101. Based on the BRI of the dependent claims, they are rejected under 35 USC 101 for the same reasons as above.
Claim 13:
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a system.
Step 2A Prong One: The claim recites “generate an input feature map vector for a plurality of input feature map blocks based on a number of channels of an input feature map being less than a number of reference channels; perform a convolution operation between the input feature map vector and weight maps, including one or more target weight maps and an additional weight map having a weight identical to one of the one or more target weight maps, based on a number of the one or more target weight maps being less than a reference number, and generate an output feature map based on a result of the convolution operation. Such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula (See Figs 4 and 5). The limitations are also directed to mental steps that can be reasonably performed with the aid of pen and paper. The claim is thus directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: The claim includes additional elements of a vector generator and a calculation circuit. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality. Such elements fail to provide a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with step 2A prong two, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and the claim as a whole fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 14:
Step 2A Prong One: The limitation “wherein the input feature map vector is vector information generated based on the plurality of input feature map blocks corresponding to a size of a weight map in a 3 dimensional (3D) input feature map” merely describes the data – input feature map vector, thus is part of the abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: The claim does not recite any additional elements thus is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 18:
Step 2A Prong One: The limitation “generates the input feature map vector as an input value corresponding to an identical channel in the plurality of input feature map blocks, based on a determination to perform a depth-wise convolution operation” describes the data (input feature map vector) and is directed to a mental step.
Step 2A Prong Two: The claim recites the additional element “the vector generator”. As described above, this is recited at a high level of generality. Thus, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: As described above, the vector generator is described at a high level of generality. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 21:
Step 2A Prong One: The limitation “generate the additional weight map having the weight identical to the one of the one or more target weight maps, based on a number of the target weight maps being less than the reference number” covers a mental step/mathematical relationship.
Step 2A Prong Two: The claim recites the additional element of “a weight map generator”. However, this is recited at a high level of generality. The claim is thus not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: As described above, “a weight map generator” is recited at a high level of generality. The claim thus does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 23:
Step 2A Prong One: The limitation “perform, based on the one or more target weight maps and the one or more additional weight map, a convolution operation on different input feature map blocks in the input feature map”. This limitation covers mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula (See Figs 4 and 5). The limitations are also directed to mental steps that can be reasonably performed with the aid of pen and paper. The claim is thus directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two:
The claim recites the additional element “the calculation circuit”. As described above, this is recited at a high level of generality. Thus, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: As described above, the calculation circuit is described at a high level of generality. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 25:
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong One: The claim recites “performs a convolution operation”. Such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula (See Specifications Paragraph 54-56, Fig. 4). The limitations are also directed to mental steps that can be reasonably performed with the aid of pen and paper. The claim is thus directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Based on the BRI of the claim, the claim recites “a Neural Processing Unit device” and further requires basing the performing upon operation scheduling. “Neural Processing Unit device” is merely linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Basing the performing upon operation scheduling is an insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements thus do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea, thus fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed above “a Neural Processing Unit device” is merely linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Basing the performing upon operation scheduling is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Basing operations on operation scheduling is well-known, routine and conventional. See Pages 69-80 Hennessy and Patterson (‘Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach, 4th edition) The claim thus does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 25 is thus not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101. Based on the BRI of the dependent claims, they are rejected under 35 USC 101 for the same reasons as above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 13, 14, 18, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 13, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as these claims invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) but the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. See claim construction above. Dependent claims are rejected for the same reason.
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 13, 14, 18, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 13, 18 and 21 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. As the specification does not provide adequate disclosure, the claim boundaries are not known, thus rendering the claim indefinite. Dependent claims are rejected for the same reason. See Claim construction above.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al (US 2019/0171930 A1, herein Lee).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches a method of generating an output feature map based on an input feature map (Fig. 2A).
Based on their BRI (See Claim Interpretation above), Claims 2-7 and 9-11 are rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1.
Claims 25, 26, 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ban (US 2022/0138282 A1).
Regarding Claim 25, Ban teaches an operating method of a Neural Processing Unit (NPU) device that performs a convolution operation based on convolution operation scheduling (Paragraph 102, 103).
Based on their BRI (See Claim Interpretation above), Claims 26, 28 and 30 are rejected for the same reasons as Claim 25.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/10/2025, have been fully considered.
The Applicant’s argues, that the combination of Ban and Nair do not teach the limitations of the independent claims. However, as explained above, the BRI of the method claims do not require all the limitations. The Applicant’s argument, that Ban and Nair do not teach the limitations in claim 13, is persuasive. Hence the rejection has been withdrawn.
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-Thursday 8 am-6 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Cottingham can be reached on (571) 272-1400. 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
Prosecution Insights