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 argument filed 06/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive regarding 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 1 has been amended with the claim elements of dependent claim 17, which no prior art teaches. Therefore, the amended claims have overcome 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections and the 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s Argument: On page 9-10 of Applicant’s response to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, applicant states the amended claims constitute a concrete, operable statistical calculation method, rather than an abstract data collection or mathematical relationship. The amended claim 1 integrates this statistical calculation method into a specific technical environment of training and fine-tuning of a recurrent neural network. The technical solution is directed to adaptively adjust the update frequency of quantization parameters during RNN training or fine-tuning to maximize computational efficiency while ensuring quantization accuracy.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. During examination, the examiner should analyze the "improvements" consideration by evaluating the specification and the claims to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement (see MPEP §2106.05(a)). The MPEP (§2106.05(a)(II)) also warns, “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” Here, the alleged improvement in the form of “monitoring the dynamic changes of a point location (a core parameter of quantization accuracy), calculating the difference between the first average value and the second average value to quantify the data variation range, dynamically determining a first target iteration interval based on the variation range, wherein the interval is shortened when the variation range increases and lengthened when the variation range decreases” is an improvement to the abstract idea that consist of a combination of a mental process and a mathematical concept.
The integration of the specific calculation method of amended claim 1 into a specific technical environment of training a recurrent neural network is mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Training a recurrent neural network does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is the mere use of generic computer elements in a high level of generality to perform the abstract idea.
An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). The amended claims do not provide sufficient details to describe any technological improvement. If the specifications explicitly set forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1): a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN201910798228.2, filed on 08/27/2019 and Application No. CN201910888141.4, filed on 09/19/2019.
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 1-15, 17-18, 20, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Claim 1 recites “A quantization parameter adjustment method for training or fine-tuning a recurrent neural network, the method comprising” and is thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
“for a current verify iteration: determining a current point location based on data to be quantized of the RNN at the current verify iteration, wherein the point location is one of quantization parameters, the point location being a decimal point position for quantizing the data to be quantized” (a mathematical calculation, See pg. 7, lines 17-20 in Specification)
“determining a variation range of the data to be quantized based on a difference between a first average value and a second average value, wherein” (a mental process that can be performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, i.e. judgement)
“the first average value is determined based on a historical point location corresponding to a previous verify iteration before the current verify iteration and at least one further historical point location corresponding to historical verify iteration(s) before the previous verify iteration” (a mathematical calculation, See pg. 21, lines 30-33 in Specification)
“the second average value is determined based on the current point location and the point location(s) of the historical verify iteration(s) before the current verify iteration” (a mathematical calculation, See pg. 22, lines 3-10 in Specification)
“determining a first target iteration interval according to the variation range. wherein the first target iteration interval is shortened when the variation range increases and lengthened when the variation range decreases” (a mathematical calculation and relationship, See pg. 31, lines 25-34 in Specification)
“adjusting quantization parameters in RNN computation according to the first target iteration interval” (a mental process that can be performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, i.e. judgement)
Claim 1 therefore recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
“for each iteration in the first target iteration interval, using a same quantization parameter to quantize the data to be quantized of the RNN” (merely specifies a particular technological environment in which the abstract idea is to take place, ie. a field of use, and thus does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself - see MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are merely restricting the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
“for each iteration in the first target iteration interval, using a same quantization parameter to quantize the data to be quantized of the RNN” (merely specifies a particular technological environment in which the abstract idea is to take place, ie. a field of use, and thus does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself - see MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea itself as they are merely restricting the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 1 is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 2:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
“adjusting the quantization parameters according to a preset iteration interval when the current verify iteration is less than or equal to a first preset iteration” (a mental process that can be performed in the human mind, i.e. judgement)
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B: None
Regarding Claim 3:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
“determining the first target iteration interval according to the data variation range of the data to be quantized when the current verify iteration is greater than a first preset iteration” (a mathematical calculation, See pg. 31, lines 25-29 in Specification)
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B: None
Regarding Claim 4:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
“determining a second target iteration interval corresponding to the current verify iteration according to the first target iteration interval and a total count of iterations in each cycle when the current verify iteration is greater than or equal to a second preset iteration, and the current verify iteration requires adjustment in quantization parameters” (a mathematical calculation, See pg. 31, lines 25-29 in Specification)
“determining an update iteration corresponding to the current verify iteration according to the second target iteration interval to adjust the quantization parameters in the update iteration, which is an iteration after the current verify iteration” (a mental process that can be performed in the human mind, i.e. judgement)
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B:
“wherein the second preset iteration is greater than a first preset iteration, and a quantization adjustment process of the recurrent neural network includes a plurality of cycles, wherein iterations are not consistent in the plurality of cycles in terms of total count” (merely specifies a particular technological environment in which the abstract idea is to take place, ie. a field of use, and thus does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself - see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding Claim 5:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
“determining an update cycle of the current verify iteration according to an iterative ordering number of the current verify iteration in a current cycle and the total count of iterations in a cycle after the current cycle, wherein the total count of iterations in the update cycle is greater than or equal to an iterative ordering number of the current verify iteration” (a mental process that can be performed in the human mind, i.e. judgement)
“determining the second target iteration interval according to the first target iteration interval, the iterative ordering number and the total count of iterations in the cycle between the current cycle and the update cycle” (a mathematical calculation, See pg. 31, lines 25-29 in Specification)
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B: None
Regarding Claim 6:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
“determining that the current verify iteration is greater than or equal to the second preset iteration if a convergence degree of the recurrent neural network satisfies a preset condition” (a mental process that can be performed in the human mind, i.e. judgement)
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B: None
Regarding Claim 7:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
“determining the point location(s) corresponding to an iteration(s) in a reference iteration interval according to a target data bit width corresponding to the current verify iteration and the data to be quantized in the current verify iteration to adjust the point location(s) in the recurrent neural network computation” (a mathematical calculation, See pg. 7, lines 17-20 in Specification)
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B:
“wherein the point location(s) corresponding to iteration(s) in the reference iteration interval are consistent, and the reference iteration interval includes the second target iteration interval or a preset iteration interval” (merely specifies a particular technological environment in which the abstract idea is to take place, ie. a field of use, and thus does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself - see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding Claim 8:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
“determining a data bit width corresponding to a reference iteration interval according to a target data bit width corresponding to the current verify iteration, wherein data bit widths corresponding to iteration(s) in the reference iteration interval are consistent, and the reference iteration interval includes the second target iteration interval or a preset iteration interval” (a mathematical calculation, See pg. 7, lines 7-20 in Specification)
“adjusting the point location(s) corresponding to an iteration(s) in the reference iteration interval according to an obtained point location iteration interval and the data bit width corresponding to the reference iteration interval to adjust the point location(s) in the recurrent neural network computation” (a mental process that can be performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, i.e. judgement)
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B:
“wherein the point location iteration interval includes at least one iteration, and point locations of iterations in the point location iteration interval are consistent” (merely specifies a particular technological environment in which the abstract idea is to take place, ie. a field of use, and thus does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself - see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding Claim 9:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
“wherein the point location iteration interval is less than or equal to the reference iteration interval” (a mathematical relationship)
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B: None
Regarding Claim 10:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1: None
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B:
“wherein the quantization parameters also include a scale factor, and the scale factor is updated synchronously with the point location(s)” (merely specifies a particular technological environment in which the abstract idea is to take place, ie. a field of use, and thus does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself - see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding Claim 11:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1: None
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B:
“wherein the quantization parameters also include an offset, and the offset is updated synchronously with the point location(s)” (merely specifies a particular technological environment in which the abstract idea is to take place, ie. a field of use, and thus does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself - see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding Claim 12:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
“determining a quantization error according to the data to be quantized of the current verify iteration and the quantized data of the current verify iteration, wherein the quantized data of the current verify iteration is obtained by quantizing the data to be quantized of the current verify iteration” (a mathematical calculation, See pg. 25, lines 19-33 in Specification)
“determining the target data bit width corresponding to the current verify iteration according to the quantization error” (a mathematical calculation, See pg. 26, lines 17-29 in Specification)
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B: None
Regarding Claim 13:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
“increasing a data bit width corresponding to the current verify iteration to obtain the target data bit width corresponding to the current verify iteration if the quantization error is greater than or equal to a first preset threshold” (a mathematical calculation)
“decreasing the data bit width corresponding to the current verify iteration to obtain the target data bit width corresponding to the current verify iteration if the quantization error is less than or equal to a second preset threshold” (a mathematical calculation)
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B: None
Regarding Claim 14:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
“determining a first intermediate data bit width according to a first preset bit width stride if the quantization error is greater than or equal to the first preset threshold” (a mathematical calculation, See pg. 27, lines 31-35 in Specification)
“returning to determine the quantization error according to the data to be quantized in the current verify iteration and the quantized data of the current verify iteration until the quantization error is less than the first preset threshold, wherein the quantized data of the current verify iteration is obtained by quantizing the data to be quantized of the current verify iteration according to the bit width of the first intermediate data” (a mathematical calculation, See pg. 25, lines 19-33 in Specification)
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B: None
Regarding Claim 15:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
“determining a second intermediate data bit width according to a second preset bit width stride if the quantization error is less than or equal to the second preset threshold” (a mathematical calculation, See pg. 29, lines 2-5 in Specification)
“returning to determine the quantization error according to the data to be quantized in the current verify iteration and the quantized data of the current verify iteration until the quantization error is greater than the second preset threshold, wherein the quantized data of the current verify iteration is obtained by quantizing the data to be quantized of the current verify iteration according to the bit width of the second intermediate data” (a mathematical calculation, See pg. 25, lines 19-33 in Specification)
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B: None
Regarding Claim 17:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
“the current point location is determined according to a target data bit width and the data to be quantized corresponding to the current verify iteration” (a mathematical calculation, See pg. 7, lines 17-22 in Specification)
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B: None
Regarding Claim 18:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
“determining the second average value according to the point location(s) of the current verify iteration and the preset number of intermediate moving average values” (a mathematical calculation, See pg. 21, lines 30-33 in Specification)
“determining the second average value according to the point location corresponding to the current verify iteration and the first average value” (a mathematical calculation, See pg. 23, lines 33-35 in Specification)
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B:
“obtaining a preset number of intermediate moving average values, wherein each intermediate moving average value is determined according to a preset number of verify iterations before the current verify iteration” (This step is directed to data gathering, which is understood to be insignificant extra solution activity (2106.05(g) in step 2A prong 2) and well understood, routine and conventional activity of transmitting and receiving data as identified by the court (2106.05(d) in step 2B)).
“wherein determining the second average value according to the point location corresponding to the current verify iteration and the point location(s) of the historical verify iteration(s) before the current verify iteration comprises” (merely specifies a particular technological environment in which the abstract idea is to take place, ie. a field of use, and thus does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself - see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Regarding Claim 20:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
“updating the second average value according to an obtained data bit width adjustment value of the current verify iteration, wherein the data bit width adjustment value of the current verify iteration is determined from the target data bit width and an initial data bit width of the current verify iteration” (a mathematical calculation)
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B: None
Regarding Claim 30:
Claim 30 recites “the computer readable storage medium stores a computer program”. The specification does not provide a clear definition on whether the claimed storage medium is limited to statutory or non-transitory elements and does not include any non-statutory elements. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim element “computer readable storage medium” are not limited to statutory elements and can be considered as non-statutory. Claim 30 is rejected because it does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter under Step 1 of the 101 subject matter eligibility analysis.
The claim also recites program product that performs the method as described in claim 1. Therefore, claim 30 is rejected for the same reasons as disclosed for claim 1. The limitations for additional elements of claim 30 are analyzed below.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
Please see Step 2A Prong 1 analysis of claim 1
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B:
“A computer readable storage medium, wherein the computer readable storage medium stores a computer program, and when the computer program is executed, the steps of the method of claim1 are implemented” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY MAC whose telephone number is (703)756-1517. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abdullah Kawsar can be reached at (571) 270-3169. 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.
/GARY MAC/Examiner, Art Unit 2127
/BRENT JOHNSTON HOOVER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2127
Prosecution Insights