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 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 “determining that a number of channels of the input feature map is less than a number of reference channels; generating an input feature map vector for a plurality of input feature map blocks based on the number of channels of the input feature map being less than the number of reference channels; determining that a number of one or more target weight maps is less than a reference number; performing a convolution operation between the input feature map vector and weight maps, including the one or more target weight maps and an additional weight map that has a weight identical to one of the one or more target weight maps, based on the number of the one or more target weight maps being less than the reference number; and generating the output feature map based on the convolution operation.”. Such limitation covers mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula and/or mental steps (See Specifications Paragraph 54+, Fig. 4, 5). 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.
Claim 2-7, 9-11:
Step 2A Prong One: The limitations in these claims cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula and/or mental steps (See Specifications Paragraph 54+, Fig.2-6). The claims are thus directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: The claims do not recite any additional elements. Thus, the claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements. Thus, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2-7, 9-11 are thus not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
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 buffer 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 “generate 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 buffer”. 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 one or more 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 processor”. 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 processor” 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 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 “determining that at least one of a number of channels of an input feature map or a number of channels of an output feature map is less than a number of reference channels; adjusting the convolution operation scheduling based on at least one of the number of channels of the input feature map or the number of channels of the output feature map being less than the number of reference channels; performing a convolution operation of a weight map on the input feature map based on the adjusted convolution operation scheduling; generating the output feature map based on the convolution operation; wherein the adjusting of the convolution operation scheduling comprises: determining that the number of channels of the output feature map is less than a number of second reference channels; generating an additional weight map having a weight identical to one of one or more target weight maps, based on the number of channels of the output feature map being less than the number of second reference channels; and adjusting the convolution operation scheduling, for the one or more target weight maps and the additional weight map to perform a convolution operation on different input feature map blocks”. Such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula and/or mental steps that can be reasonably performed with the aid of pen and paper (See Specifications Paragraph 54+, Fig. 4-5). The claim is thus directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: The claim further 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. 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. The claim thus does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 26, 28 and 30:
Step 2A Prong One: The limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula and/or mental steps that can be reasonably performed with the aid of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two: The claims do not recite any additional elements. The claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claims do not recite any additional elements. The claim thus does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims are thus not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
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 9-11 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.
Claim 9 recites “The method of claim 1, further comprising determining that a number of the one or more target weight maps is less than the reference number”. Claim 1 recites “determining that a number of one or more target weight maps is less than a reference number”. There does not appear to be support for the determining to occur a second time for the same target weight maps.
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.
Claim 13 recites “a buffer configured to generate an input feature map vector….”. A buffer is just memory. It is not clear what it means for a buffer to generate an input feature map.
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reason.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/23/2025, have been fully considered.
The Applicant’s argument related to 35 USC 112(f) is persuasive. The amended claims do not invoke 35 USC 112(f).
The Applicant’s argument, that Ban and Lee do not teach the limitations in the amended claims, is persuasive. Hence the rejections have been withdrawn.
The Applicant argues, in view of the recent guidance in Desjardins, that the instant application includes similar improvements. However, the instant application claims are very different from the claims in Desjardins. The Applicant argues that the instant application claims reflect an improvement to the functioning of the computer. However, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement (MPEP 2106.05(a)). The additional elements, if any, are recited at a high level of generality. Also, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology. All the limitations in at least claim 1 can be performed mentally with the aid of pen and paper.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Jyoti Mehta whose telephone number is (571)270-3995. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am-4 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Cottingham can be reached on (571) 272-1400. 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