DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the application and the preliminary amendment filed 05/26/2022.
Claims 1-15, 18, and 21-24 are presented for examination. Claims 1-5, 10-12, 15, 18 have been amended. Claims 16, 17, 19, and 20 have been cancelled. Claims 21-24 have been added.
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), and based on application # 201910910055.9 filed in CHINA on 09/24/2019, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The Applicants’ Information Disclosure Statements (filed 12/23/2021, 04/28/2022, 09/15/2023, 03/30/2025, and 11/04/2025) have been received, entered into the record, and considered.
Drawings
4. The drawings filed 05/26/2022 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
5. The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Descriptive Title Required
The title of the invention is not descriptive. The title should be as “specific as possible” 37 CFR 1.72 while not exceeding “500 characters in length”. The title should provide “informative value” and serve to aid in the “indexing, classifying, searching” and other Official identification functions. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. MPEP606.01
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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, 18, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “determining split state sets of tensor data associated with a target operator in a calculation graph corresponding to a neural network model”; “traversing the split state sets and determining splitting paths of the tensor data of the target operator between adjacent split state sets”; “determining a target splitting path of the tensor data of the target operator according to weights of the splitting paths”; and “splitting the target operator according to the target splitting path to distribute the target operator to corresponding cores of the multi-core artificial intelligence processor for processing” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements “neural network model processing” and “a multi-core artificial intelligence processor” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “neural network model processing” and “a multi-core artificial intelligence processor” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations “traversing all split state sets of the tensor data of the target operator, comprising, for a current split state set”; “traversing split states and obtaining directed edges directing to each current split state and splitting paths from split states corresponding to a starting point of the respective directed edges to a split state of input tensor data of the target operator”; and “determining a splitting path from the current split state to the split state of the input tensor data of the target operator according to weights of the directed edges and weights of splitting paths from split states corresponding to the starting point of the directed edges to the split state of the input tensor data of the target operator, wherein the weights of splitting paths are determined according to weights of the directed edges corresponding to the splitting paths” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The additional elements “after all split state sets of the target operator are traversed, obtaining a target splitting path from split state sets of the input tensor data of the target operator split state sets of output tensor data of the target operator” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data. The courts have identified mere data/information gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and merely gathering data/information do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations “traversing all split state sets of the target operator, comprising, for a current split state set”; “traversing split states and obtaining directed edges starting from each current split state and splitting paths from split states corresponding to an ending point of the respective directed edges to a split state of output tensor data of the target operator”; and “determining a splitting path from the current split state to the split state of the output tensor data of the target operator according to weights of the directed edges and weights of splitting paths from split states corresponding to the ending point of the directed edges to the split state of the output tensor data of the target operator, wherein the weights of splitting paths are determined according to weights of the directed edges corresponding to the splitting paths” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The additional elements “after all split state sets of the target operator are traversed, obtaining a target splitting path from split state sets of input tensor data of the target operator to split state sets of the output tensor data of the target operator” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data. The courts have identified mere data/information gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and merely gathering data/information do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations “inserting a glue operator between the target operator and a split state set associated with the target operator and adjusting split states in the split state set, wherein the glue operator is used to convert split states obtained by splitting the tensor data according to one splitting method into split states obtained by splitting the tensor data according to another splitting method” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations “inserting the glue operator between the target operator and the split state set associated with the target operator comprises: selecting each inserted glue operator by using the target splitting path of the target operator in the calculation graph including the glue operator, in a case that split states of input tensor data in the glue operator included in the target splitting path are the same as split states of output tensor data, deleting a corresponding inserted glue operator” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “the glue operator is used to concatenate the split states in the split state set” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “the glue operator is used to split the split states in the split state set” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8 the limitation “the glue operator is used to concatenate the split states in the split state set first and then split the split states that are concatenated in the split state set” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “the glue operator is used to split the split states in the split state set first and then concatenate the split states that are split in the split state set” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “in a forward traversal phase, when output tensor data of a current operator is regarded as input tensor data by at least two operators, or the current operator has at least two pieces of output tensor data, reserving one split state in the split state set of the output tensor data of the current operator, wherein a reserved split state is determined according to a same directed edge of the current operator” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “in a backward traversal phase, when a current operator has at least two pieces of input tensor data, reserving one split state in the split state set of the input tensor data of the current operator, wherein the split state is determined according to a same directed edge of the current operator” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “the weights of the directed edges are determined according to a computational operational type of the target operator corresponding to the splitting path, a data scale of corresponding sub-data obtained by the tensor data of the target operator through the splitting path, and a throughput rate and a memory access bandwidth of each processor core” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “split states in the split state sets of input tensor data of the target operator are determined according to a computational logic of the target operator and the split states in the split state set of corresponding output tensor data” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “split states in the split state sets of output tensor data of the target operator are determined according to a computational logic of the target operator and the split states in the split state set of corresponding input tensor data” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations “determine split state sets of tensor data associated with a target operator in a calculation graph corresponding to a neural network model”; “traverse the split state sets and determine splitting paths of the tensor data of the target operator between adjacent split state sets”; “determine a target splitting path of the tensor data of the target operator according to weights of the splitting paths”; and “split the target operator according to the target splitting path to distribute the target operator to corresponding cores of the multi-core artificial intelligence processor for processing” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements “an apparatus for neural network model processing”, “a multi-core artificial intelligence processor”, and “a general-purpose processor” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “an apparatus for neural network model processing”, “a multi-core artificial intelligence processor”, and “a general-purpose processor” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 18, the limitations “determine split state sets of tensor data associated with a target operator in a calculation graph corresponding to a neural network model”; “traverse the split state sets and determine splitting paths of the tensor data of the target operator between adjacent split state sets”; “determine a target splitting path of the tensor data of the target operator according to weights of the splitting paths”; and “split the target operator according to the target splitting path to distribute the target operator to corresponding cores of the multi-core artificial intelligence processor for processing” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements “a computer device”, “processors”, “a memory”, “a general-purpose processor”, and “a multi-core artificial intelligence processor” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a computer device”, “processors”, “a memory”, “a general-purpose processor”, and “a multi-core artificial intelligence processor” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 21-24, they correspond to claims 2-5. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Double Patenting
7. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15, 18, and 21-24 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-15, 18, and 21-24 of co-pending application 17/622706.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. patent number 11783003 teaches or suggests every element of the instant application.
Instant Application
Co-pending application 17/622706
1. A method for neural network model processing applied to a multi-core artificial intelligence processor, comprising:
determining split state sets of tensor data associated with a target operator in a calculation graph corresponding to a neural network model;
traversing the split state sets and determining splitting paths of the tensor data of the target operator between adjacent split state sets;
determining a target splitting path of the tensor data of the target operator according to weights of the splitting paths; and
splitting the target operator according to the target splitting path to distribute the target operator to corresponding cores of the multi-core artificial intelligence processor for processing.
1. A method for splitting a target operator of a neural network model to be processed by a multi-core processor, the method comprising:
determining a sequence of split state sets of tensor data associated with the target operator according to a calculation graph corresponding to the neural network model, wherein the tensor data includes input tensor data and output tensor data, wherein the split state set of the input tensor data is the first split state set in the sequence and the split state set of the output tensor data is the last split state set in the sequence;
traversing the split state sets and determining splitting paths of the tensor data of the target operator and weights of the splitting paths, wherein each splitting path comprises directed edges each between two split states respectively from two adjacent split state sets in the sequence;
determining a target splitting path, among the determined splitting paths, for splitting the tensor data according to the weights of the splitting paths; and
splitting the tensor data according to the target splitting path and distributing the tensor data to corresponding cores of the multi-core processor for processing.
As to the remaining claims 2-15, 18, and 21-24, they are also rejected under obvious type double patenting as stated in claim 1 above.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-15, 18, and 21-24 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 16-35 of co-pending application 17/419290.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. patent number 11783003 teaches or suggests every element of the instant application.
Instant Application
Co-pending application 17/419290
1. A method for neural network model processing applied to a multi-core artificial intelligence processor, comprising:
determining split state sets of tensor data associated with a target operator in a calculation graph corresponding to a neural network model;
traversing the split state sets and determining splitting paths of the tensor data of the target operator between adjacent split state sets;
determining a target splitting path of the tensor data of the target operator according to weights of the splitting paths; and
splitting the target operator according to the target splitting path to distribute the target operator to corresponding cores of the multi-core artificial intelligence processor for processing.
16. A neural network model splitting method, comprising:
determining a splitting state set of tensor data associated with an operator of a target layer in a neural network model, wherein the target layer includes at least one layer in the neural network model;
traversing the splitting state set according to a directed acyclic graph of the neural network model, and determining a state path between each pair of adjacent splitting state sets and a weight of the state path, wherein the state path is indicative of a splitting method of the operator, each state in the splitting state set corresponds to a set of sub-tensor data, and the tensor data is a union of sub-tensor data corresponding to the respective states in the splitting state set;
determining a target splitting path for the target layer according to the weights of the state paths; and
splitting the operator of the target layer in the neural network model using the target splitting path.
As to the remaining claims 2-15, 18, and 21-24, they are also rejected under obvious type double patenting as stated in claim 1 above.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11 and 13-15, and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ling et al. (US 20190130265).
The reference was cited by Applicant in the IDS filed 09/15/2023.
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
As to claim 1:
Ling teaches a method for neural network model processing applied to a multi-core artificial intelligence processor ([0059] and [0069]: processor cores used to process the operations in the convolutional neural network), comprising:
determining split state sets of tensor data associated with a target operator in a calculation graph corresponding to a neural network model ([0074]: as shown in FIG. 4, assume that two input data FD1 and FD2 are received at a certain layer in the convolutional neural network, and it may be determined that the input data FD1 and FD2 actually correspond to two parts of a complete feature data FD (as indicated by an arrow A1 in FIG. 4));
traversing the split state sets and determining splitting paths of the tensor data of the target operator between adjacent split state sets ([0074]: The input data FD1 corresponds to a part of the feature data FD in channels C1 and C2 (shown as FD_C1 and FD_C2 in FIG. 4, respectively), and the input data FD2 corresponds to a part of the feature data FD in channels C3 to C5 (shown as FD_C3, FD_C4 and FD_C5 in FIG. 4, respectively));
determining a target splitting path of the tensor data of the target operator according to weights of the splitting paths ([0075]: the weight parameter including two kernels (K1 and K2) of this layer may be split (as indicated by an arrow A2 in FIG. 4) in the depth dimension into two parts according to the received input data FD1 and FD2, of which one corresponds to the input data FD1 and includes partial kernels FD1_K1 (including channels C1 and C2 of the kernel K1) and FD1_K2 (including channels C1 and C2 of the kernel K2), and the other corresponds to the input data FD2 and includes partial kernels FD2_K1 (including channels C3 to C5 of the kernel K1) and FD2_K2 (including channels C3 to C5 of the kernel K2); [0081]: After obtaining the operational parameter array containing a plurality of operational parameters in the step S101, the method 100 may proceed to a step S105, in which each operational parameter in the obtained operational parameter array may be used respectively to perform operations of the selected layer on data in the input data for the selected layer that are in the channel(s) corresponding to the channel(s) of the operational parameter in use, resulting in a partial operation result array including a plurality of partial operation results); and
splitting the target operator according to the target splitting path to distribute the target operator to corresponding cores of the multi-core artificial intelligence processor for processing ([0058-0059]: in the step S101, the weight parameter may be split in a case where the number of kernels of the weight parameter is greater than or equal to a first predetermined number, such that the number of rows of the operational parameter array obtained by the splitting may be equal to a multiple of the first predetermined number ...the first predetermined number may be set according to the number of processors (such as CPU, GPU, or dedicated accelerator, etc.) or processor cores used to process the operations in the convolutional neural network; see also, [0068-0069]).
As to claim 2:
Ling teaches determining the target splitting path of the tensor data of the target operator comprises: traversing all split state sets of the tensor data of the target operator, comprising, for a current split state set; traversing split states and obtaining directed edges directing to each current split state and splitting paths from split states corresponding to a starting point of the respective directed edges to a split state of input tensor data of the target operator (Fig. 4 and [0074-0075]); and determining a splitting path from the current split state to the split state of the input tensor data of the target operator according to weights of the directed edges and weights of splitting paths from split states corresponding to the starting point of the directed edges to the split state of the input tensor data of the target operator, wherein the weights of splitting paths are determined according to weights of the directed edges corresponding to the splitting paths; and after all split state sets of the target operator are traversed, obtaining a target splitting path from split state sets of the input tensor data of the target operator split state sets of output tensor data of the target operator (Fig. 4 and [0076-0081]).
As to claim 3:
Ling teaches determining the target splitting path of the tensor data of the target operator comprises: traversing all split state sets of the target operator, comprising, for a current split state set: traversing split states and obtaining directed edges starting from each current split state and splitting paths from split states corresponding to an ending point of the respective directed edges to a split state of output tensor data of the target operator (Fig. 4 and [0074-0076]); and determining a splitting path from the current split state to the split state of the output tensor data of the target operator according to weights of the directed edges and weights of splitting paths from split states corresponding to the ending point of the directed edges to the split state of the output tensor data of the target operator, wherein the weights of splitting paths are determined according to weights of the directed edges corresponding to the splitting paths; and after all split state sets of the target operator are traversed, obtaining a target splitting path from split state sets of input tensor data of the target operator to split state sets of the output tensor data of the target operator (Fig. 4 and [0076-0081]).
As to claim 4:
Ling teaches inserting a glue operator between the target operator and a split state set associated with the target operator and adjusting split states in the split state set, wherein the glue operator is used to convert split states obtained by splitting the tensor data according to one splitting method into split states obtained by splitting the tensor data according to another splitting method (Fig. 4 and [0074-0076]).
As to claim 5:
Ling teaches inserting the glue operator between the target operator and the split state set associated with the target operator comprises: selecting each inserted glue operator by using the target splitting path of the target operator in the calculation graph including the glue operator, in a case that split states of input tensor data in the glue operator included in the target splitting path are the same as split states of output tensor data, deleting a corresponding inserted glue operator (Fig. 4 and [0074-0076]).
As to claim 6:
Ling teaches the glue operator is used to concatenate the split states in the split state set (Fig. 4 and [0074-0076]).
As to claim 7
Ling teaches the glue operator is used to split the split states in the split state set (Fig. 4 and [0074-0076]).
As to claim 8:
Ling teaches the glue operator is used to concatenate the split states in the split state set first and then split the split states that are concatenated in the split state set (Fig. 4 and [0074-0076]).As to claim 9:
Ling teaches the glue operator is used to split the split states in the split state set first and then concatenate the split states that are split in the split state set (Fig. 4 and [0074-0076]).
As to claim 10:
Ling teaches in a forward traversal phase, when output tensor data of a current operator is regarded as input tensor data by at least two operators, or the current operator has at least two pieces of output tensor data, reserving one split state in the split state set of the output tensor data of the current operator, wherein a reserved split state is determined according to a same directed edge of the current operator (Figs. 6-8 and [0093-0097]).
As to claim 11:
Ling teaches in a backward traversal phase, when a current operator has at least two pieces of input tensor data, reserving one split state in the split state set of the input tensor data of the current operator, wherein the split state is determined according to a same directed edge of the current operator (Figs. 6-8 and [0093-0097]).
As to claim 13:
Ling teaches split states in the split state sets of input tensor data of the target operator are determined according to a computational logic of the target operator and the split states in the split state set of corresponding output tensor data (Figs. 6-7 and [0093-0096]).
As to claim 14:
Ling teaches split states in the split state sets of output tensor data of the target operator are determined according to a computational logic of the target operator and the split states in the split state set of corresponding input tensor data (Figs. 6-7 and [0093-0096]).
As to claim 15:
Refer to the discussion of claim 1 above for rejection. Claim 15 is the same as claim 1, except claim 15 is an apparatus claim and claim 1 is a method claim.
As to claims 18-24:
Refer to the discussion of claims 1-5 above, respectively, for rejections. Claims 18-24 are the same as claims 1-5, except claims 18-24 are computer device claims and claims 1-5 are method claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, subject to the 101 and patenting rejections detailed above, subject to the results of a final search by the Examiner.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record, listed on PTO 892 provided to Applicant is considered to have relevancy to the claimed invention. Applicant should review each identified reference carefully before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the prior art.
Contact Information
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VAN H. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3765. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday from 9:00AM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, LEWIS BULLOCK, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3759. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/VAN H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights