DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-28 are pending in the application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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 Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
4. Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 12, applicant asserted “In the present application, with respect to whether the present claims recite mathematical concepts, Applicant respectfully submits that the features of the present claims are more analogous to those of Example 38 than those of Example 41, wherein, while some of the features of the independent claims may be based on mathematical concepts, the mathematical concepts are not recited in the claims.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim in example 38 and the instant claim are not analogous since the claim in example 38 does not recite limitations that cover the mathematical concept or mental processes, whereas the instant claim recites limitations that cover an abstract idea under step 2A prong one, such as determining a value of a nonlinear function (see at least specification pages 11-18 describing mathematical equation to calculate nonlinear function [i.e., mathematical concept], also the limitations recited in the instant claim, under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the performance of such limitations using pen and paper [i.e., mental processes], such that one of ordinary skill in the art can create a LUT and obtain value based on an input address, and determine a value of a nonlinear function based on the value of the LUT. Accordingly, the claim in example 38 and the instant claim are not analogous.
Applicant further argues on page 12, “Further, regarding mathematical calculations, the October 2019 Guidance states at page 4 “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation will be considered as falling within the ‘mathematical concepts’ grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation.” Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits the present claims do not recite any mathematical concepts deemed to be abstract ideas.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C) states “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping”, and the instant claim recites at least a limitation of determining a value of a nonlinear function, such limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification performs mathematical calculation (see at least page 11-18 of the specification).
On pages 12-13, applicant further asserted “Applicant respectfully submits that, e.g., “receive input data, load a lookup table (LUT), determine an address of the LUT by inputting the input data to a comparator, obtain a value of the LUT corresponding to the input data, and determine a value of a nonlinear function corresponding to the input data based on the value of the LUT, wherein the LUT is determined based on a weight of a neural network that outputs the value of the nonlinear function,” as recited in claim 1, cannot practically be performed in the human mind, as the human mind is not equipped to perform such complex operations.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees because such limitations under broadest reasonable interpretation covers the performance using pen and paper and such operations are not too complex for one of ordinary skill in the art, such as one of ordinary skill in the art can determine a value of a nonlinear function corresponding to the input data based on the value of the LUT.
On pages 13-14 applicant further asserted, “Applicant respectfully submits that the present claims impose a meaningful limit on the claimed features cited by the Office, such that the claims are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the claimed features cited by the Office.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees because, the additional elements do not impose a meaningful limit on the claimed features.
On pages 14-15, applicant further asserted “For example, the published present application discloses … Moreover, these technical improvements are realized in the claimed features. For example, independent claim 1 recites, inter alia “receive input data, load a lookup table (LUT), determine an address of the LUT by comparing by a comparator, the input data and one or more preset range values determined based on ratios of values of a neural network, obtain a value of the LUT corresponding to the input data, and determine a value of a nonlinear function corresponding to the input data based on the value of the LUT, wherein the LUT is determined based on a weight of the neural network, wherein the neural network outputs the value of the nonlinear function.” Accordingly, each independent claim sets forth respective subject matter that improves the technological functioning of devices on which it may be implemented, and thus are directed to technological improvements.”
68. Examiner respectfully disagrees because any arguably improvements, such as determine the optimal range and variable as described in the remarks, is a direct consequence of performing the abstract idea, such as determining an address and value of the LUT and determine a value of nonlinear function based on the value of the LUT as recited in the claim. MPEP 2106.05(a) states “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements”. Thus, any arguably improvements, such as determine the optimal range and variable, is a result of determining an address and value of the LUT and determine a value of nonlinear function based on the value of the LUT.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
7. Under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 1 recites a hardware accelerator and, therefore, is a machine, where a machine is one of four statutory categories that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent.
Under Step2A prong 1, claim 1 recites
A hardware accelerator, comprising:
a processor configured to
receive input data,
load a lookup table (LUT),
determine an address of the LUT by comparing by a comparator, the input data and one or more preset range values determined based on ratios of values of a neural network,
obtain a value of the LUT corresponding to the input data, and
determine a value of a nonlinear function corresponding to the input data based on the value of the LUT,
wherein the LUT is determined based on a weight of the neural network, wherein the neural network outputs the value of the nonlinear function.
The above underlined limitations are related to calculating, processing, and organizing data for determining a value of a nonlinear function which amounts to processing mathematical relationships/calculations and organizing data which falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” (see pages 8-9 and 11-18 including Figures 3, 4A - 4C, and 5A-5C) and/or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A prong 2, the claim recites the following additional elements: a processor, receive input data, load a lookup table (LUT), and a comparator. However, the additional elements of “a processor” and “a comparator” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for receiving the inputs; as a generic computer component for executing instructions; and as a generic computer component that outputs the solution) such that they amount to no more than the mere instruction using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements of “receive input data” and “load a lookup table (LUT)” are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a processor” and “a comparator” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for receiving the inputs; as a generic computer component for executing instructions; and as a generic computer component that outputs the solution) such that they amount to no more than the mere instruction using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements of “receive input data” and “load a lookup table (LUT)” are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) which states that the courts have recognized computer functions such as “storing and retrieving information in memory” as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as an insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
8. Under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 2 recites a hardware accelerator and, therefore, is a machine, where a machine is one of four statutory categories that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent.
Under Step2A prong 1, claim 2 recites
The hardware accelerator of claim 1, wherein, for the determining of the address, the processor is configured to:
and determine the address based on a range value corresponding to the input data.
The above underlined limitations are related to calculating, processing, and organizing data for determining a value of a nonlinear function which amounts to processing mathematical relationships/calculations and organizing data which falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” (see pages 8-9 and 11-18 including Figures 3, 4A - 4C, and 5A-5C) and/or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A prong 2, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, claim 2 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
9. Under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 3 recites a hardware accelerator and, therefore, is a machine, where a machine is one of four statutory categories that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent.
Under Step2A prong 1, claim 3 recites
The hardware accelerator of claim 1, wherein, for the obtaining of the value of the LUT, the processor is configured to:
obtain a first value and a second value corresponding to the address.
The above underlined limitations are related to calculating, processing, and organizing data for determining a value of a nonlinear function which amounts to processing mathematical relationships/calculations and organizing data which falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” (see pages 8-9 and 11-18 including Figures 3, 4A - 4C, and 5A-5C) and/or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A prong 2, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step2B, claim 3 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
10. Under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 4 recites a hardware accelerator and, therefore, is a machine, where a machine is one of four statutory categories that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent.
Under Step2A prong 1, claim 4 recites
The hardware accelerator of claim 3, wherein, for the determining of the value of the nonlinear function, the processor is configured to:
perform a first operation of multiplying the input data and the first value; and perform a second operation of adding the second value to a result of the first operation.
The above underlined limitations are related to calculating, processing, and organizing data for determining a value of a nonlinear function which amounts to processing mathematical relationships/calculations and organizing data which falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” (see pages 8-9 and 11-18 including Figures 3, 4A - 4C, and 5A-5C) and/or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A prong 2, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step2B, claim 4 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
11. Under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 5 recites a hardware accelerator and, therefore, is a machine, where a machine is one of four statutory categories that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent.
Under Step2A prong 1, claim 5 recites
The hardware accelerator of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
perform a softmax operation based on the value of the nonlinear function.
The above underlined limitations are related to calculating, processing, and organizing data for determining a value of a nonlinear function which amounts to processing mathematical relationships/calculations and organizing data which falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” (see pages 8-9 and 11-18 including Figures 3, 4A - 4C, and 5A-5C) and/or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A prong 2, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step2B, claim 5 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
12. Under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 6 recites a hardware accelerator and, therefore, is a machine, where a machine is one of four statutory categories that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent.
Under Step2A prong 1, claim 6 recites
The hardware accelerator of claim 5, wherein the processor is configured to:
for the determining of the value of the nonlinear function, determine a value of an exponential function of each input data for the softmax operation; and
store in a memory, values of the exponential function obtained by the determining of the value of the exponential function
The above underlined limitations are related to calculating, processing, and organizing data for determining a value of a nonlinear function which amounts to processing mathematical relationships/calculations and organizing data which falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” (see pages 8-9 and 11-18 including Figures 3, 4A - 4C, and 5A-5C) and/or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A prong 2, the claim recites the following additional elements: store, in a memory, values of the exponential function obtained by the determining of the value of the exponential function. However, the additional elements of “store, in a memory, values of the exponential function obtained by the determining of the value of the exponential function” are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step2B, claim 6 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “store, in a memory, values of the exponential function obtained by the determining of the value of the exponential function” are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) which states that the courts have recognized computer functions such as “storing and retrieving information in memory” as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as an insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
13. Under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 7 recites a hardware accelerator and, therefore, is a machine, where a machine is one of four statutory categories that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent.
Under Step2A prong 1, claim 7 recites
The hardware accelerator of claim 6, wherein, for the performing of the softmax operation, the processor is configured to:
accumulate the values of the exponential function; and
store, in the memory, an accumulated value obtained by the accumulating.
The above underlined limitations are related to calculating, processing, and organizing data for determining a value of a nonlinear function which amounts to processing mathematical relationships/calculations and organizing data which falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” (see pages 8-9 and 11-18 including Figures 3, 4A - 4C, and 5A-5C) and/or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A prong 2, the claim recites the following additional elements: store, in the memory, an accumulated value obtained by the accumulating. However, the additional elements of “store, in the memory, an accumulated value obtained by the accumulating” are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step2B, claim 7 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “store, in the memory, an accumulated value obtained by the accumulating” are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) which states that the courts have recognized computer functions such as “storing and retrieving information in memory” as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as an insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
14. Under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 8 recites a hardware accelerator and, therefore, is a machine, where a machine is one of four statutory categories that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent.
Under Step2A prong 1, claim 8 recites
The hardware accelerator of claim 7, wherein, for the performing of the softmax operation, the processor is configured to:
determine a reciprocal of the accumulated value by inputting the accumulated value to the comparator; and
store the reciprocal in the memory.
The above underlined limitations are related to calculating, processing, and organizing data for determining a value of a nonlinear function which amounts to processing mathematical relationships/calculations and organizing data which falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” (see pages 8-9 and 11-18 including Figures 3, 4A - 4C, and 5A-5C) and/or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A prong 2, the claim recites the following additional elements: store the reciprocal in the memory. However, the additional elements of “store the reciprocal in the memory” are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step2B, claim 8 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “store the reciprocal in the memory” are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) which states that the courts have recognized computer functions such as “storing and retrieving information in memory” as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as an insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
15. Under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 9 recites a hardware accelerator and, therefore, is a machine, where a machine is one of four statutory categories that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent.
Under Step2A prong 1, claim 9 recites
The hardware accelerator of claim 6, wherein, for the performing of the softmax operation, the processor is configured to:
multiply the value of the exponential function and a reciprocal of the accumulated value.
The above underlined limitations are related to calculating, processing, and organizing data for determining a value of a nonlinear function which amounts to processing mathematical relationships/calculations and organizing data which falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” (see pages 8-9 and 11-18 including Figures 3, 4A - 4C, and 5A-5C) and/or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A prong 2, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step2B, claim 9 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
16. Under the Alice Framework, Claims 10-18 recite similar abstract ideas to claims 1-9, respectively, with the removal of additional elements of their respective claim. Claims 10-18 recite a processor-implemented hardware accelerator method and, therefore, is a process, where a process is one of four statutory categories that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent. Claims 10-18 recite a process practiced by the machine of claims 1-9, respectively. As such, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, are not integrated into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
17. Under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 19 recites a processor-implemented hardware accelerator method and, therefore, is a process, where a process is one of four statutory categories that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent.
Under Step2A prong 1, claim 19 recites
generating the neural network to include a first layer, an activation function, and a second layer;
training the neural network to output a value of the nonlinear function;
transforming the first layer and the second layer of the trained neural network into a single integrated layer; and
generating, based on the integrated layer, the LUT for determining the nonlinear function.
The above underlined limitations are related to calculating, processing, and organizing data for determining a value of a nonlinear function which amounts to processing mathematical relationships/calculations and organizing data which falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” (see pages 8-18 including Figures 1, 3, 4A - 4C, and 5A-5C) and/or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A prong 2, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step2B, claim 19 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
18. Under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 20 recites a processor-implemented hardware accelerator method and, therefore, is a process, where a process is one of four statutory categories that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent.
Under Step2A prong 1, claim 20 recites
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium stores instructions that, when executed by a processor, configure the processor to perform the receiving of the input data, the loading of the LUT, the determining of the address of the LUT, the obtaining of the value of the LUT, and the determining of the value of the nonlinear function.
The above underlined limitations would be analyzed as in claim 10.
Under Step 2A prong 2, the claim recites the following additional elements: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, configure, and the processor. However, the additional elements of “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” and “the processor” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for receiving the inputs; as a generic computer component for executing instructions; and as a generic computer component that outputs the solution) such that they amount to no more than the mere instruction using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements of “storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, configure” are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step2B, claim 20 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” and “the processor” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for receiving the inputs; as a generic computer component for executing instructions; and as a generic computer component that outputs the solution) such that they amount to no more than the mere instruction using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements of “storing instructions that, when executed by a process, configure” are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) which states that the courts have recognized computer functions such as “storing and retrieving information in memory” as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as an insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
19. Under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 21 recites a processor-implemented hardware accelerator method and, therefore, is a process, where a process is one of four statutory categories that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent.
Under Step2A prong 1, claim 21 recites
A processor-implemented hardware accelerator method, the method comprising:
generating a neural network comprising a first layer, an activation function, and a second layer;
training the neural network to output a value of a nonlinear function;
transforming the first layer and the second layer of the trained neural network into a single integrated layer; and
generating, based on the integrated layer, and ratios of values of the neural network, a LUT for determining the nonlinear function.
The above underlined limitations are related to calculating, processing, and organizing data for determining a value of a nonlinear function which amounts to processing mathematical relationships/calculations and organizing data which falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” (see pages 8-18 including Figures 1, 3, 4A - 4C, and 5A-5C) and/or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A prong 2, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step2B, claim 21 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
20. Under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 22 recites a processor-implemented hardware accelerator method and, therefore, is a process, where a process is one of four statutory categories that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent.
Under Step2A prong 1, claim 22 recites
The method of claim 21, wherein the generating of the LUT comprises:
determining an address of the LUT based on a weight and a bias of the first layer; and
determining, based on a weight of the integrated layer, a value of the LUT corresponding to the address.
The above underlined limitations are related to calculating, processing, and organizing data for determining a value of a nonlinear function which amounts to processing mathematical relationships/calculations and organizing data which falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” (see pages 8-18 including Figures 1, 3, 4A - 4C, and 5A-5C) and/or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A prong 2, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step2B, claim 22 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
21. Under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 23 recites a processor-implemented hardware accelerator method and, therefore, is a process, where a process is one of four statutory categories that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent.
Under Step2A prong 1, claim 23 recites
The method of claim 22, wherein the determining of the address comprises:
determining a range value of the LUT; and
determining the address corresponding to the range value.
The above underlined limitations are related to calculating, processing, and organizing data for determining a value of a nonlinear function which amounts to processing mathematical relationships/calculations and organizing data which falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” (see pages 8-18 including Figures 1, 3, 4A - 4C, and 5A-5C) and/or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A prong 2, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step2B, claim 23 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
22. Under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 24 recites a processor-implemented hardware accelerator method and, therefore, is a process, where a process is one of four statutory categories that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent.
Under Step2A prong 1, claim 24 recites
The method of claim 22, wherein the determining of the value of the LUT comprises:
determining a first value based on the weight of the integrated layer; and
determining a second value based on the weight of the integrated layer and the bias of the first layer.
The above underlined limitations are related to calculating, processing, and organizing data for determining a value of a nonlinear function which amounts to processing mathematical relationships/calculations and organizing data which falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” (see pages 8-18 including Figures 1, 3, 4A - 4C, and 5A-5C) and/or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A prong 2, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step2B, claim 24 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
23. Under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 25 recites a processor-implemented hardware accelerator method and, therefore, is a process, where a process is one of four statutory categories that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent.
Under Step2A prong 1, claim 25 recites
A processor-implemented hardware accelerator method, the method comprising:
Determining, by comparing input data and one or more preset range values determined based on ratio values of a neural network, an address of a lookup table (LUT), wherein the LUT is generated by integrating a first layer and a second layer of the neural network;
obtaining a value of the LUT corresponding to the input data based on the address; and
determining a value of a nonlinear function corresponding to the input data based on the value of the LUT.
The above underlined limitations are related to calculating, processing, and organizing data for determining a value of a nonlinear function which amounts to processing mathematical relationships/calculations and organizing data which falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” (see pages 8-18 including Figures 1, 3, 4A - 4C, and 5A-5C) and/or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A prong 2, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step2B, claim 25 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
24. Under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 26 recites a processor-implemented hardware accelerator method and, therefore, is a process, where a process is one of four statutory categories that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent.
Under Step2A prong 1, claim 26 recites
The method of claim 25, wherein the determining of the address comprises:
comparing the input data to one or more preset range values determined based on weights and biases of the first layer; and
determining, based on a result of the comparing, the address based on a range value corresponding to the input data.
The above underlined limitations are related to calculating, processing, and organizing data for determining a value of a nonlinear function which amounts to processing mathematical relationships/calculations and organizing data which falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” (see pages 8-18 including Figures 1, 3, 4A - 4C, and 5A-5C) and/or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A prong 2, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step2B, claim 26 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
25. Under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 27 recites a processor-implemented hardware accelerator method and, therefore, is a process, where a process is one of four statutory categories that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent.
Under Step2A prong 1, claim 27 recites
The method of claim 26, wherein the one or more preset range values are determined based on ratios of the biases and the weights.
The above underlined limitations are related to calculating, processing, and organizing data for determining a value of a nonlinear function which amounts to processing mathematical relationships/calculations and organizing data which falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” (see pages 8-18 including Figures 1, 3, 4A - 4C, and 5A-5C) and/or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A prong 2, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step2B, claim 27 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
26. Under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 28 recites a processor-implemented hardware accelerator method and, therefore, is a process, where a process is one of four statutory categories that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent.
Under Step2A prong 1, claim 28 recites
The method of claim 27, wherein the comparing comprises comparing the input data to the one or more preset range values based on an ascending order of values of the ratios.
The above underlined limitations are related to calculating, processing, and organizing data for determining a value of a nonlinear function which amounts to processing mathematical relationships/calculations and organizing data which falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” (see pages 8-18 including Figures 1, 3, 4A - 4C, and 5A-5C) and/or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A prong 2, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step2B, claim 28 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
21. Claims 1-28 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The claims recite at least comparing, by a comparator, the input data and one or more preset range values determined based on ratios of values of a neural network.
Nvidia, Yu, and Ramdorai disclose the claimed invention but do not teach or suggest at least comparing, by a comparator, the input data and one or more preset range values determined based on ratios of values of a neural network.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D YAARY whose telephone number is (571)270-1249. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30.
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, James Trujillo can be reached at (571)272-3677. 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.
/MICHAEL D. YAARY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151