Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/29/2025 on pages 11-14 of Remarks regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Beginning on page 11, Applicant respectfully disagrees and asserts that under 101 Step 2A Prong One the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because the calculations involving formats Int8 (8-bit integer format), BF16 (16-bit floating-point format), and TF32 (19-bit floating-point format) are too complex to be performed in the human mind. However,
Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c) talks about mental processes on a generic computer. Also, see MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). The above mentioned sections of the MPEP set forth that a claim may recite a mental process even with the use of a generic computer. In particular, Int8 calculations can be performed with the aid of pen and paper in addition to BF16 and TF32 when written with scientific notation. See updated rejection below.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 14-17 of Remarks regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Beginning on page 14, Applicant asserts that the amended claim 1 features that the first format is Int8, which is an integer format and in contrast, Prokopenko states that the Multiply-Accumulate process handles multiple-format floating-point operands. In particular, the Applicant asserts that Prokopenko classifies the data format by bit length, not the numerical data formats (integer format or floating-point format). However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. See paragraph [0138] of Prokopenko to see that “FIGS. 10A-10C are diagrams illustrating exemplary data flow and formats for Multiply Accumulate (MACC) units, such as the MACC unit from FIG. 8. More specifically, referring back to FIG. 8, the MACC unit 872 can be configured to process long data (floating point, integer, etc.), short data (floating point, integer, etc.), and mixed data (floating point, integer, etc.) with increased performance when processing operands with short data.”. Examiner notes that the short format data is the first format that consists of an integer format and the long format data is the second format that consists of floating-point format. See updated rejection below.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 10-11 of Remarks regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because the citations that applicant provided do not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function to overcome the 112 interpretation. These limitations are being interpreted under 112(f), therefore the 112(b) rejection follows.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1, 6 and 11, “wherein the first format is Int8” should recite “wherein the first format is an integer”. Appropriate correction is required. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting Int8 as an integer.
Claim Interpretation
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:
“first calculation module” in claims 1, 2, 6 and 7.
“second calculation module” in claims 1, 2, 6 and 7.
“control module” in claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 11, 15, 16 and 19.
“integrated calculation module” in claims 11, 12, 16 and 17.
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.
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 § 112(a) – Written Description
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 1-20 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.
As per MPEP 2161.01, a computer-implemented functional claim limitation may lack adequate written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail to that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. Moreover, the Federal Circuit has explained that a specification cannot always support expansive claim language and satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 “merely by clearly describing one embodiment of the thing claimed.” LizardTech v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1346, 76 USPQ2d 1731, 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
If it is the position of Applicant that any of the functions identified below are so well known in the art that they need not be described in the specification, Applicant should state this clearly on the record. This will be taken as an admission when considering prior art rejections. The issue is whether a person skilled in the art would understand the inventor to have invented, and been in possession of, the invention as broadly claimed.
Claims 1, 2, 6 and 7 recite a “first calculation module”; The scope of the claim encompasses all possible ways of performing calculation on data with a first format. In contrast, the specification, see e.g., published [0011], describes at best a particular way of performing the first format calculation based on input data. For the purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret module as generic computing components.
Claims 1, 2, 6 and 7 recite a “second calculation module”; The scope of the claim encompasses all possible ways of performing calculation on data with a second format. In contrast, the specification, see e.g., published [0011], describes at best a particular way of performing the second format calculation based on input data different than the first format. For the purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret module as generic computing components.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 11, 15, 16 and 19 recite a “control module”; However, the control module performs functions because it comprises of these other modules. The control module does not have sufficient structure because the other modules do not have sufficient structure. For the purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret module as generic computing components.
Claims 11, 12, 16 and 17 “integrated calculation module”; However, the integrated calculation module performs functions because it comprises of these other modules. The control module does not have sufficient structure because the other modules do not have sufficient structure. For the purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret module as generic computing components.
Dependent claims 3-5, 7-10, 12-15 and 17-20 do not resolve the issue and are rejected with the same rationale. While the claims narrow the scope somewhat, none limits the module to a scope which is fully supported by the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 limitations:
a. “first calculation module” in claims 1, 2, 6 and 7.
b. “second calculation module” in claims 1, 2, 6 and 7.
c. “control module” in claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 11, 15, 16 and 19.
d. “integrated calculation module” in claims 11, 12, 16 and 17.” 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 performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant’s arguments on pages 10-11 of Remarks regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because the citations that applicant provided do not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function to overcome the 112 interpretation. These limitations are being interpreted under 112(f), therefore the 112(b) rejection follows. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, 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 and clearly links them to the function 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.
Claims 1, 2, 6 and 7 recite a “first calculation module”; The scope of the claim encompasses all possible ways of performing calculation on data with a first format. In contrast, the specification, see e.g., published [0011], describes at best a particular way of performing the first format calculation based on input data. For the purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret module as generic computing components.
Claims 1, 2, 6 and 7 recite a “second calculation module”; The scope of the claim encompasses all possible ways of performing calculation on data with a second format. In contrast, the specification, see e.g., published [0011], describes at best a particular way of performing the second format calculation based on input data different than the first format. For the purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret module as generic computing components.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 11, 15, 16 and 19 recite a “control module”; However, the control module performs functions because it comprises of these other modules. The control module does not have sufficient structure because the other modules do not have sufficient structure. For the purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret module as generic computing components.
Claims 11, 12, 16 and 17 “integrated calculation module”; However, the integrated calculation module performs functions because it comprises of these other modules. The control module does not have sufficient structure because the other modules do not have sufficient structure. For the purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret module as generic computing components.
Dependent claims 3-5, 7-10, 12-15 and 17-20 do not resolve the issue and are rejected with the same rationale.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1,
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a processor, i.e., a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“[a first calculation module configured to] perform a first format calculation on data with a first format, wherein the first format is Int8;”
“[a second calculation module configured to] perform a second format calculation on data with a second format, wherein the second format is different from the first format;”
“[a control module coupled to the first calculation module and the second calculation module to] switch [the AI processor] to a first mode, a second mode or a third mode according to a calculation strategy and to perform at least one of the first format calculation and the second format calculation on an input data to obtain a calculation result;”
“wherein the calculation strategy comprises: the control module determines whether the first format calculation or the second format calculation is performed in each of several calculations; in the first mode, [the control module enables the first calculation module to] perform the first format calculation on the input data with the first format; in the second mode, [the control module enables the second calculation module to] perform the second format calculation on the input data with the second data format; in the third mode, for each of the calculations, [the control module enables the first calculation module to perform the first format calculation or enables the second calculation module to] perform the second format calculation on the input data or a data derived from the input data, according to the calculation strategy.”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts performed in human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, e.g., performing, switching). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass, inter alia, performing calculations, switching to a first mode, a second mode or a third mode (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The limitations:
“a first calculation module configured to [perform a first format calculation on data with a first format, wherein the first format is Int8;]”
“a second calculation module configured to [perform a second format calculation on data with a second format, wherein the second format is different from the first format;]”
“a control module coupled to the first calculation module and the second calculation module to [switch] the AI processor [to a first mode, a second mode or a third mode according to a calculation strategy and to perform at least one of the first format calculation and the second format calculation on an input data to obtain a calculation result;]”
“[wherein the calculation strategy comprises: the control module determines whether the first format calculation or the second format calculation is performed in each of several calculations; in the first mode,] the control module enables the first calculation module to [perform the first format calculation on the input data with the first format; in the second mode,] the control module enables the second calculation module to [perform the second format calculation on the input data with the second data format; in the third mode, for each of the calculations,] the control module enables the first calculation module to perform the first format calculation or enables the second calculation module to [perform the second format calculation on the input data or a data derived from the input data, according to the calculation strategy.]”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, they amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using a module and AI processor (e.g., by using these elements as tools).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The limitations:
“a first calculation module configured to [perform a first format calculation on data with a first format, wherein the first format is Int8;]”
“a second calculation module configured to [perform a second format calculation on data with a second format, wherein the second format is different from the first format;]”
“a control module coupled to the first calculation module and the second calculation module to [switch] the AI processor [to a first mode, a second mode or a third mode according to a calculation strategy and to perform at least one of the first format calculation and the second format calculation on an input data to obtain a calculation result;]”
“[wherein the calculation strategy comprises: the control module determines whether the first format calculation or the second format calculation is performed in each of several calculations; in the first mode,] the control module enables the first calculation module to [perform the first format calculation on the input data with the first format; in the second mode,] the control module enables the second calculation module to [perform the second format calculation on the input data with the second data format; in the third mode, for each of the calculations,] the control module enables the first calculation module to perform the first format calculation or enables the second calculation module to [perform the second format calculation on the input data or a data derived from the input data, according to the calculation strategy.]”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, they amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using a module and AI processor (e.g., by using these elements as tools).
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 2,
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to a processor, i.e., a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“[wherein the first calculation module and the second calculation module are further configured to] determine a data format of the input data: if the data format of the input data is different from the first format and the second format, the data format of the input data is converted to the first format or the second format.”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts performed in human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, e.g., determining, converting). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass, inter alia, determining whether a data format of the input data is identical to the first format or the second format, converting the data format (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The limitations:
“wherein the first calculation module and the second calculation module are further configured to [determine a data format of the input data: if the data format of the input data is different from the first format and the second format, the data format of the input data is converted to the first format or the second format.]”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, they amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using a module (e.g., by using these elements as tools).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The limitations:
“wherein the first calculation module and the second calculation module are further configured to [determine a data format of the input data: if the data format of the input data is different from the first format and the second format, the data format of the input data is converted to the first format or the second format.]”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, they amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using a module (e.g., by using these elements as tools).
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3,
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a processor, i.e., a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the determination of the calculation strategy is based on the requirement of calculation speed, the requirement of calculation precision, and the requirement of bandwidth and/or power consumption of the data.”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts performed in human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, e.g., determining). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass, inter alia, determination of the calculation strategy (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Please see the corresponding analysis of Claim 1.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4,
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a processor, i.e., a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the second format is BF16 or TF32.”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts performed in human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, e.g., performing). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass, inter alia, performing calculations (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Please see the corresponding analysis of Claim 1.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 5,
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a processor, i.e., a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see the corresponding analysis of Claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The limitations:
“wherein the control module can be realized by hardware, firmware and software or a combination thereof.”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, they amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using a module (e.g., by using these elements as tools).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The limitations:
“wherein the control module can be realized by hardware, firmware and software or a combination thereof.”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, they amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using a module (e.g., by using these elements as tools).
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 6,
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a method, i.e., a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“switching [the AI processor] to a first mode, a second mode or a third mode [by a control module of the AI processor] according to a calculation strategy, wherein the calculation strategy comprises: the control module determines whether a first format calculation or a second format calculation is performed in each of several calculations;”
“in the first mode, [the control module enables a first calculation module to] perform the first format calculation on the input data with a first format, wherein the first format is Int8;”
“in the second mode, [the control module enables a second calculation module to] perform the second format calculation on the input data with a second format; and”
“in the third mode, for each of the calculations, [the control module enables the first calculation module to perform the first format calculation or enables the second calculation module to] perform the second format calculation on the input data or a data derived from the input data, according to the calculation strategy.”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts performed in human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, e.g., switching, performing). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass, inter alia, switching modes, performing calculations (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The limitations:
“[switching] the AI processor [to a first mode, a second mode or a third mode] by a control module of the AI processor [according to a calculation strategy, wherein the calculation strategy comprises: the control module determines whether a first format calculation or a second format calculation is performed in each of several calculations;]”
“[in the first mode,] the control module enables a first calculation module to [perform the first format calculation on the input data with a first format, wherein the first format is Int8;]”
“[in the second mode,] the control module enables a second calculation module to [perform the second format calculation on the input data with a second format; and]”
“[in the third mode, for each of the calculations,] the control module enables the first calculation module to perform the first format calculation or enables the second calculation module to [perform the second format calculation on the input data or a data derived from the input data, according to the calculation strategy.]”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, they amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using a module and AI processor (e.g., by using these elements as tools).
The limitations:
“receiving an input data; and”
As drafted, amount to insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. For example, the additional elements of "receiving an input data" amount to mere data gathering and data storage, respectively, which are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The limitations:
“[switching] the AI processor [to a first mode, a second mode or a third mode] by a control module of the AI processor [according to a calculation strategy, wherein the calculation strategy comprises: the control module determines whether a first format calculation or a second format calculation is performed in each of several calculations;]”
“[in the first mode,] the control module enables a first calculation module to [perform the first format calculation on the input data with a first format, wherein the first format is Int8;]”
“[in the second mode,] the control module enables a second calculation module to [perform the second format calculation on the input data with a second format; and]”
“[in the third mode, for each of the calculations,] the control module enables the first calculation module to perform the first format calculation or enables the second calculation module to [perform the second format calculation on the input data or a data derived from the input data, according to the calculation strategy.]”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, they amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using a module and AI processor (e.g., by using these elements as tools).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activities or mere instructions to apply an exception. (i.e., the additional element describes a unit for applying the abstract ideas). Insignificant extra-solution activities and mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Moreover, receiving, communicating, and storing data are insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) ("The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions ... i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network") (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 7,
Claim 7 recites substantially similar subject matter to claim 2 and is rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding Claim 8,
Claim 8 recites substantially similar subject matter to claim 3 and is rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding Claim 9,
Claim 9 recites substantially similar subject matter to claim 4 and is rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding Claim 10,
Claim 10 recites substantially similar subject matter to claim 5 and is rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding Claim 11,
Claim 11 recites an integrated control module substantially similar subject matter to claim 1 and is rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding Claim 12,
Claim 12 recites an integrated control module substantially similar subject matter to claim 2 and is rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding Claim 13,
Claim 13 recites substantially similar subject matter to claim 3 and is rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding Claim 14,
Claim 14 recites substantially similar subject matter to claim 4 and is rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding Claim 15,
Claim 15 recites substantially similar subject matter to claim 5 and is rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding Claim 16,
Claim 16 recites an integrated control module substantially similar subject matter to claim 6 and is rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding Claim 17,
Claim 17 recites an integrated control module substantially similar subject matter to claim 2 and is rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding Claim 18,
Claim 18 recites substantially similar subject matter to claim 3 and is rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding Claim 19,
Claim 19 recites substantially similar subject matter to claim 5 and is rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding Claim 20,
Claim 20 recites substantially similar subject matter to claim 4 and is rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prokopenko et al. (US20070185953A1); hereinafter Prokopenko in view of Gong et al. (US20230118802A1); hereinafter Gong
Claim 1 is rejected over Prokopenko and Gong.
Regarding claim 1, Prokopenko teaches a mixed-precision [artificial intelligence (AI)] processor, characterized in comprising:
a first calculation module configured to perform a first format calculation on data with a first format, wherein the first format is Int8; (“one embodiment can include a short exponent calculation component (first calculation module) configured to receive short format data (first format)”; Abstract; and “FIGS. 10A-10C are diagrams illustrating exemplary data flow and formats for Multiply Accumulate (MACC) units, such as the MACC unit from FIG. 8. More specifically, referring back to FIG. 8, the MACC unit 872 can be configured to process long data (floating point, integer, etc.), short data (floating point, integer, etc.), and mixed data (floating point, integer, etc.) with increased performance when processing operands with short data.”; [0138]; Note: The short format data is the first format that consists of an integer format and the long format data is the second format that consists of floating-point format.)
a second calculation module configured to perform a second format calculation on data with a second format, wherein the second format is different from the first format; (“one embodiment can include a short exponent calculation component configured to receive short format data, a long exponent calculation component (second calculation module) configured to receive long format data (second format),”; Abstract)
a control module coupled to the first calculation module and the second calculation module to switch the [AI] processor to a first mode, a second mode or a third mode according to a calculation strategy and to perform at least one of the first format calculation on an input data to obtain a calculation result;
wherein the calculation strategy comprises: the control module determines whether the first format calculation or the second format calculation is performed in each of several calculations; in the first mode, the control module enables the first calculation module to perform calculation on the input data with the first format; in the second mode, the control module enables the second calculation module to perform the second format calculation on the input data with the second data format; (“the stream processor (control module) is configured to functionally divide at least one pair of the ALUs to facilitate dual format processing with a variable Single Instruction Multiple Data (SIMD) factor for short formats (first format) and for long formats (second format).”; [0097] and “Some embodiments are configured wherein the instruction set includes at least one instruction to process in at least one of the following modes: a short format operand mode (first mode), a long format operand mode (second mode), and a mixed format operand mode (third mode).”; [0097])
in the third mode, for each of the calculations, the control module enables the first calculation module to perform the first format calculation or enables the second calculation module to perform the second format calculation on the input data or a data derived from the input data, according to the calculation strategy. (“To process dual format floating point data on the same set of hardware one can use separate exponent calculation channels because of their relative small size. Additionally, one can merge short mantissa and long mantissa processing paths in a single hardware structure.”; [0184]; The separate exponent calculation channels include the short format and long format.)
Prokopenko does not teach an artificial intelligence (AI) processor.
However, Gong teaches an artificial intelligence (AI) processor. (“An inference neural network model may include low-precision quantization, as discussed below, and provide suitably optimized performance for deployment.”; [0015]; and “The system and methods described above with reference to FIGS. 1-7 (inclusive) may be implemented in any number of ways, including hardware (such as, e.g., a processor) executing software instructions”; [0058])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the short and long format calculation modes of Prokopenko with the mixed precision quantization of different data formats of Gong for improved calculation performance (Gong, [0108]). Prokopenko and Gong are analogous arts because they both concern mixed-precision calculations.
Claim 4 is rejected over Prokopenko and Gong with the incorporation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Prokopenko teaches wherein the second format is BF16 or TF32. (“FIGS. 10A-10C are diagrams illustrating exemplary data flow and formats for Multiply Accumulate (MACC) units, such as the MACC unit from FIG. 8. More specifically, referring back to FIG. 8, the MACC unit 872 can be configured to process long data (floating point, integer, etc.), short data (floating point, integer, etc.), and mixed data (floating point, integer, etc.) with increased performance when processing operands with short data.”; [0138]; Note: The long format data is the second format that consists of floating-point format.)
Claim 5 is rejected over Prokopenko and Gong with the incorporation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Prokopenko teaches wherein the control module can be realized by hardware, firmware and software or a combination thereof. (“the stream processor (control module) is configured to functionally divide at least one pair of the ALUs to facilitate dual format processing with a variable Single Instruction Multiple Data (SIMD) factor for short formats (first mode) and for long formats (second mode).”; [0097]; Note: The stream processor is hardware.)
Claim 6 is rejected over Prokopenko and Gong.
Regarding claim 6, Prokopenko teaches an operating method of a mixed-precision [AI] processor, wherein the operating method is applicable to an [AI] processor and is characterized in comprising:
receiving an input data; and (“one embodiment can include a short exponent calculation component configured to receive short format data, a long exponent calculation component configured to receive long format data,”; Abstract)
switching the [AI] processor to a first mode, a second mode or a third mode by a control module of the AI processor according to a calculation strategy, wherein the calculation strategy comprises: the control module determines whether a first format calculation or a second format calculation is performed in each of several calculations; (“the stream processor (control module) is configured to functionally divide at least one pair of the ALUs to facilitate dual format processing with a variable Single Instruction Multiple Data (SIMD) factor for short formats (first format) and for long formats (second format).”; [0097] and “Some embodiments are configured wherein the instruction set includes at least one instruction to process in at least one of the following modes: a short format operand mode (first mode), a long format operand mode (second mode), and a mixed format operand mode (third mode).”; [0097])
in the first mode, the control module enables a first calculation module to perform the first format calculation on the input data with a first format, wherein the first format is Int8; (“one embodiment can include a short exponent calculation component (first calculation module) configured to receive short format data (first format)”; Abstract; and “FIGS. 10A-10C are diagrams illustrating exemplary data flow and formats for Multiply Accumulate (MACC) units, such as the MACC unit from FIG. 8. More specifically, referring back to FIG. 8, the MACC unit 872 can be configured to process long data (floating point, integer, etc.), short data (floating point, integer, etc.), and mixed data (floating point, integer, etc.) with increased performance when processing operands with short data.”; [0138]; Note: The short format data is the first format that consists of an integer format and the long format data is the second format that consists of floating-point format.)
in the second mode, the control module enables a second calculation module to perform the second format calculation on the input data with a second format; and (“one embodiment can include a short exponent calculation component configured to receive short format data, a long exponent calculation component (second calculation module) configured to receive long format data (second format),”; Abstract)
in the third mode, for each of the calculations, the control module enables the first calculation module to perform the first format calculation or enables the second calculation module to perform the second format calculation on the input data or a data derived from the input data, according to the calculation strategy. (“To process dual format floating point data on the same set of hardware one can use separate exponent calculation channels because of their relative small size. Additionally, one can merge short mantissa and long mantissa processing paths in a single hardware structure.”; [0184]; The separate exponent calculation channels include the short format and long format.)
Prokopenko does not teach an artificial intelligence (AI) processor.
However, Gong teaches an artificial intelligence (AI) processor. (“An inference neural network model may include low-precision quantization, as discussed below, and provide suitably optimized performance for deployment.”; [0015]; and “The system and methods described above with reference to FIGS. 1-7 (inclusive) may be implemented in any number of ways, including hardware (such as, e.g., a processor) executing software instructions”; [0058])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the short and long format calculation modes of Prokopenko with the mixed precision quantization of different data formats of Gong for improved calculation performance (Gong, [0108]). Prokopenko and Gong are analogous arts because they both concern mixed-precision calculations.
Dependent claim 9 is claim 4 in the form of a method and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4 above. For the rejection of the limitations specifically pertaining to the method of claim 6, see the rejection of claim 6 above.
Dependent claim 10 is claim 5 in the form of a method and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5 above. For the rejection of the limitations specifically pertaining to the method of claim 6, see the rejection of claim 6 above.
Claim 11 is rejected over Prokopenko and Gong.
Regarding claim 11, Prokopenko teaches a mixed-precision [artificial intelligence (AI) processor, characterized in comprising:
an integrated calculation module provided with a first configuration and a second configuration,
wherein in the first configuration, the integrated calculation module is configured to perform a first format calculation on data with a first format, wherein the first format is Int8;
in the second configuration, the integrated calculation module is configured to perform a second format calculation on data with a second format, wherein the second format is different from the first format; (“FIG. 23 is an exemplary diagram of a merged mantissa data path, which can process short (first configuration) and long (second configuration) data formats, describing details of a possible implementation of the data path illustrated in FIG. 11.”; [0048]; and “FIGS. 10A-10C are diagrams illustrating exemplary data flow and formats for Multiply Accumulate (MACC) units, such as the MACC unit from FIG. 8. More specifically, referring back to FIG. 8, the MACC unit 872 can be configured to process long data (floating point, integer, etc.), short data (floating point, integer, etc.), and mixed data (floating point, integer, etc.) with increased performance when processing operands with short data.”; [0138]; Note: The short format data is the first format that consists of an integer format and the long format data is the second format that consists of floating-point format. The merged mantissa data path is the integrated calculation module that performs calculations based on the first or second data format.)
a control module coupled to the integrated calculation module to convert the AI processor to a first mode, a second mode or a third mode according to a calculation strategy and to perform at least one of the first format calculation and the second format calculation based on an input data to obtain a calculation result; (“the stream processor (control module) is configured to functionally divide at least one pair of the ALUs to facilitate dual format processing with a variable Single Instruction Multiple Data (SIMD) factor for short formats (first format) and for long formats (second format).”; [0097] and “Some embodiments are configured wherein the instruction set includes at least one instruction to process in at least one of the following modes: a short format operand mode (first mode), a long format operand mode (second mode), and a mixed format operand mode (third mode).”; [0097])
wherein the calculation strategy comprises: the control module uses the first format or the second format in each of several calculations; in the first mode, the control module allocates the integrated calculation module as the first configuration to perform the first format calculation on the input data with the first format; in the second mode, the control module allocates the integrated calculation module as the second configuration to perform the second format calculation on the input data with the second format; (“the stream processor (control module) is configured to functionally divide at least one pair of the ALUs to facilitate dual format processing with a variable Single Instruction Multiple Data (SIMD) factor for short formats (first format) and for long formats (second format).”; [0097] and “Some embodiments are configured wherein the instruction set includes at least one instruction to process in at least one of the following modes: a short format operand mode (first mode), a long format operand mode (second mode), and a mixed format operand mode (third mode).”; [0097])
in the third mode, for each of the calculations, the control module allocates the integrated calculation module as the first configuration to perform the first format calculation or as the second configuration to perform the second format calculation on the input data or a data derived from the input data according to the calculation strategy. (“To process dual format floating point data on the same set of hardware one can use separate exponent calculation channels because of their relative small size. Additionally, one can merge short mantissa and long mantissa processing paths in a single hardware structure.”; [0184]; The separate exponent calculation channels include the short format and long format.)
Prokopenko does not teach an artificial intelligence (AI) processor.
However, Gong teaches an artificial intelligence (AI) processor. (“An inference neural network model may include low-precision quantization, as discussed below, and provide suitably optimized performance for deployment.”; [0015]; and “The system and methods described above with reference to FIGS. 1-7 (inclusive) may be implemented in any number of ways, including hardware (such as, e.g., a processor) executing software instructions”; [0058])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the short and long format calculation modes of Prokopenko with the mixed precision quantization of different data formats of Gong for improved calculation performance (Gong, [0108]). Prokopenko and Gong are analogous arts because they both concern mixed-precision calculations.
Dependent claim 14 is claim 4 in the form of a method and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4 above. For the rejection of the limitations specifically pertaining to the method of claim 11, see the rejection of claim 11 above.
Dependent claim 15 is claim 5 in the form of a method and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5 above. For the rejection of the limitations specifically pertaining to the method of claim 11, see the rejection of claim 6 above.
Claim 16 is rejected over Prokopenko and Gong.
Regarding claim 16, Prokopenko teaches an operating method of a mixed-precision [AI] processor, is applicable to an [AI] processor, wherein the operating method comprises:
receiving an input data; and (“one embodiment can include a short exponent calculation component configured to receive short format data, a long exponent calculation component (second calculation module) configured to receive long format data,”; Abstract)
switching the [AI] processor to a first mode, a second mode or a third mode by a control module of the [AI] processor according to a calculation strategy, wherein the calculation strategy determines whether a first format calculation or a second format calculation is performed in each of several calculations; (“the stream processor (control module) is configured to functionally divide at least one pair of the ALUs to facilitate dual format processing with a variable Single Instruction Multiple Data (SIMD) factor for short formats (first format) and for long formats (second format).”; [0097] and “Some embodiments are configured wherein the instruction set includes at least one instruction to process in at least one of the following modes: a short format operand mode (first mode), a long format operand mode (second mode), and a mixed format operand mode (third mode).”; [0097])
in the first mode, the control module allocates an integrated calculation module as a first configuration to perform the first format calculation on the input data with a first format, wherein the first format is Int8; (“one embodiment can include a short exponent calculation component (first calculation module) configured to receive short format data (first format)”; Abstract; and “FIGS. 10A-10C are diagrams illustrating exemplary data flow and formats for Multiply Accumulate (MACC) units, such as the MACC unit from FIG. 8. More specifically, referring back to FIG. 8, the MACC unit 872 can be configured to process long data (floating point, integer, etc.), short data (floating point, integer, etc.), and mixed data (floating point, integer, etc.) with increased performance when processing operands with short data.”; [0138]; Note: The short format data is the first format that consists of an integer format and the long format data is the second format that consists of floating-point format.)
in the second mode, the control module allocates the integrated calculation module as a second configuration to perform the second format calculation on the input data with a second format; and (“one embodiment can include a short exponent calculation component configured to receive short format data, a long exponent calculation component (second calculation module) configured to receive long format data (second format),”; Abstract)
in the third mode, for each of the calculations, the control module, according to the calculation strategy, allocates the integrated calculation module as the first configuration to perform the first format calculation or the second configuration to perform the second format calculation on the input data or a data derived from the input data using the first format or the second format. (“To process dual format floating point data on the same set of hardware one can use separate exponent calculation channels because of their relative small size. Additionally, one can merge short mantissa and long mantissa processing paths in a single hardware structure.”; [0184]; The separate exponent calculation channels include the short format and long format.)
Prokopenko does not teach an artificial intelligence (AI) processor.
However, Gong teaches an artificial intelligence (AI) processor. (“An inference neural network model may include low-precision quantization, as discussed below, and provide suitably optimized performance for deployment.”; [0015]; and “The system and methods described above with reference to FIGS. 1-7 (inclusive) may be implemented in any number of ways, including hardware (such as, e.g., a processor) executing software instructions”; [0058])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the short and long format calculation modes of Prokopenko with the mixed precision quantization of different data formats of Gong for improved calculation performance (Gong, [0108]). Prokopenko and Gong are analogous arts because they both concern mixed-precision calculations.
Dependent claim 19 is claim 9 in the form of a method and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 9 above. For the rejection of the limitations specifically pertaining to the method of claim 16, see the rejection of claim 16 above.
Dependent claim 20 is claim 4 in the form of a method and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4 above. For the rejection of the limitations specifically pertaining to the method of claim 16, see the rejection of claim 16 above.
Claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prokopenko and Gong in view of Ramesh et al. (US20200341761A1, Bit sting operations using a computing tile); hereinafter Ramesh
Claim 2 is rejected over Prokopenko, Gong and Ramesh with the incorporation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Prokopenko does not teach wherein the first calculation module and the second calculation module are further configured to determine a data format of the input data: if the data format of the input data is different from the first format and the second format, the data format of the input data is converted to the first format or the second format.
However, Ramesh teaches wherein the first calculation module and the second calculation module are further configured to determine a data format of the input data: if the data format of the input data is different from the first format and the second format, the data format of the input data is converted to the first format or the second format. (“embodiments herein are directed to hardware circuitry that is configured to perform conversion operations to convert a format of a bit string from a first format (e.g., a floating-point format) to a second format (e.g., a unum format, a posit format, etc.). Once the bit string(s) have been converted to the second format, the circuitry can be operated to perform operations (e.g., arithmetic operations, logical operations, bit-wise operation, vector operations, etc.) on the converted bit strings and/or cause the converted bit strings to be transferred to other circuitry to perform such operations.”; [0024]; and “the hardware circuitry can be further operated to convert the results of the operations back to the first format (e.g., to a floating-point format), which can, in turn, be transferred to different circuitry (e.g., a host, a memory device, etc.)”; [0025]; Note: The data conversion occurs when the formats differ.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the short and long format calculation modes of Prokopenko with the precision conversion of Ramesh for faster and efficient calculations (Ramesh, [0126]). Prokopenko and Ramesh are analogous art because they both concern mixed data format calculations.
Claim 3 is rejected over Prokopenko, Gong and Ramesh with the incorporation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Prokopenko does not teach wherein the determination of the calculation strategy is based on the requirement of calculation speed, the requirement of calculation precision, and the requirement of bandwidth and/or power consumption of the data.
However, Ramesh teaches wherein the determination of the calculation strategy is based on the requirement of calculation speed, the requirement of calculation precision, and the requirement of bandwidth and/or power consumption of the data. (“In contrast to floating-point bit strings, posits can, under certain conditions, allow for a higher precision (e.g., a broader dynamic range and/or a higher accuracy) than floating-point numbers with the same bit width. This can allow for operations performed by a computing system to be performed at a higher rate (e.g., faster) when using posits than with floating-point numbers, which, in turn, can improve the performance of the computing system by, for example, reducing a number of clock cycles used in performing operations, thereby reducing processing time and/or power consumed in performing such operations.”; [0021])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the short and long format calculation modes of Prokopenko with the precision conversion of Ramesh for faster and efficient calculations (Ramesh, [0126]). Prokopenko and Ramesh are analogous art because they both concern mixed data format calculations.
Dependent claim 7 is claim 2 in the form of a method and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2 above. For the rejection of the limitations specifically pertaining to the method of claim 6, see the rejection of claim 6 above.
Dependent claim 8 is claim 3 in the form of a method and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3 above. For the rejection of the limitations specifically pertaining to the method of claim 6, see the rejection of claim 6 above.
Claim 12 is rejected over Prokopenko, Gong and Ramesh with the incorporation of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Prokopenko does not teach wherein the integrated calculation module is further configured to determine a data format of the input data: if the data format of the input data is different from the first format and the second format, the data format of the input data is converted to the first format or the second format used in the integrated calculation module.
However, Ramesh teaches wherein the integrated calculation module is further configured to determine a data format of the input data: if the data format of the input data is different from the first format and the second format, the data format of the input data is converted to the first format or the second format used in the integrated calculation module. (“embodiments herein are directed to hardware circuitry that is configured to perform conversion operations to convert a format of a bit string from a first format (e.g., a floating-point format) to a second format (e.g., a unum format, a posit format, etc.). Once the bit string(s) have been converted to the second format, the circuitry can be operated to perform operations (e.g., arithmetic operations, logical operations, bit-wise operation, vector operations, etc.) on the converted bit strings and/or cause the converted bit strings to be transferred to other circuitry to perform such operations.”; [0024]; and “the hardware circuitry can be further operated to convert the results of the operations back to the first format (e.g., to a floating-point format), which can, in turn, be transferred to different circuitry (e.g., a host, a memory device, etc.)”; [0025]; Note: The data conversion occurs when the formats differ.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the short and long format calculation modes of Prokopenko with the precision conversion of Ramesh for faster and efficient calculations (Ramesh, [0126]). Prokopenko and Ramesh are analogous art because they both concern mixed data format calculations.
Dependent claim 13 recites substantially similar subject matter as claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3 above. For the rejection of the limitations specifically pertaining to the method of claim 11, see the rejection of claim 11 above.
Dependent claim 17 is claim 12 in the form of a method and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 12 above. For the rejection of the limitations specifically pertaining to the method of claim 16, see the rejection of claim 16 above.
Dependent claim 18 is claim 3 in the form of a method and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3 above. For the rejection of the limitations specifically pertaining to the method of claim 16, see the rejection of claim 16 above.
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 DAVID H TRAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am - 5:30 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, Viker Lamardo can be reached at (571) 270-5871. 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.
/DAVID H TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2147
/VIKER A LAMARDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2147