DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-6, 14, and 16-20 in the reply filed on 9/2/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 26 change “range and” to “range; and”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
element-wise operations unit in claims 3, 5, 16;
activation unit in claims 4, 5, 6;
local response normalisation (LRN) unit in claims 5, 16, 17; and
pooling unit in claims 16.
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.
As to claims 3, 5, 16’s element-wise operations unit, the examiner interprets the means plus function limitation to the corresponding structure: the algorithm for negation and division as disclosed in [00148], [00160], respectively of the applicant’s specification.
As to claims 4, 5’s activation unit, corresponding structure for the first and second lookup is not found in the specification.
As to claim 6’s activation unit, the examiner interprets the means plus function limitation to the corresponding structure: the algorithm for negation as disclosed in [00148] of the applicant’s specification.
As to claims 5, 16’s local response normalisation (LRN) unit, corresponding structure for performing local response normalization is not found in the specification.
As to claim 17’s local response normalisation (LRN) unit, the examiner interprets the means plus function limitation to the corresponding structure: the algorithm for calculating a reciprocal as disclosed in [00162]-[00164] of the applicant’s specification.
As to claim 16’s pooling unit, the examiner interprets the means plus function limitation to the corresponding structure: the algorithm for max pooling as disclosed in [00147] and Fig. 8 of the applicant’s specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4, 5, 16 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.
Claims 4, 5’s limitation activation unit invokes 35 USC 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC 11, sixth paragraph. The activation unit is claimed to evaluate a sigmoid function by a first and evaluate a reciprocal by a second lookup, respectively. Applicant’s specification seems to merely restate the functions ([00176], [00181]). However, the written description fails to provide an adequate description of the structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed functions of these limitations.
Claims 5, 16’s limitation local response normalisation (LRN) unit invokes 35 USC 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC 11, sixth paragraph. The local response normalisation unit is claimed to evaluate/perform local response normalisation. Applicant’s specification seems to merely restate the functions ([00120]). However, the written description fails to provide an adequate description of the structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed functions of these limitations.
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.
Claim limitations “activation unit” and “local response normalisation (LRN) unit” invokes 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. Paragraphs [00176], [00181], [00120] of applicant’s specification describes the functions of the activation unit and local response normalisation unit. However, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function of the claim, as the specification merely restates the function and does not disclose physical structure or steps for performing the claimed functions. 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.
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, 14, 16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pillai et al. (US 20190042922 A1, hereinafter “Pillai”, included in IDS filed 7/29/2022) in view of Chen et al. (US 20200225913 A1, hereinafter “Chen”).
As per claim 1, Pillai teaches A method of implementing an exponential operation comprising: receiving a definition of at least one neural network layer comprising the exponential operation (Pillai: Fig. 8 elements 802-804 as implemented by Fig. 7; [0141]);
mapping the neural network layer to a representation comprising a plurality of elementary neural network operations from the set of available elementary neural network operations (Pillai: Fig. 8 element 806; [0142]);
and evaluating the plurality of elementary neural network operations, wherein each of the plurality of elementary neural network operations is selected from the list consisting of:
an element-wise negation or subtraction operation (Pillai: [0052]);
an element-wise addition operation (Pillai: [0052]);
an element-wise division operation (Pillai: [0084]);
an element-wise bit-shifting operation (Pillai: [0084]);
an element-wise operation of the form f(z) = 2.sup.z, where z is in general a non-integer value (Pillai: [0077]);
an element-wise multiplication operation (Pillai: [0084]);
a first lookup in a first Lookup table (LUT), wherein the first LUT comprises a sigmoid function (Pillai: Fig. 10C; [0152]);
However, while Pillai discloses the functions may be implemented as a coprocessor core ([0192]), Pillai does not explicitly disclose the functions on a hardware accelerator with fixed function circuitry. Thus, Pillai does not teach implementing an exponential operation in a hardware accelerator comprising fixed-function circuitry configured to perform a set of available elementary neural network operations.
Chen teaches implementing an exponential operation in a hardware accelerator comprising fixed-function circuitry configured to perform a set of available elementary neural network operations (Chen: [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the circuit of Pillai with the accelerator of Chen. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose hardware to perform neural network computations, and performing nonlinear functions on an accelerator improves system performance (Chen: [0035]).
As per claim 14, the claim is directed to a data processing system that implements the same or similar features as the method of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
As per claim 16, Pillai/Chen further teaches The data processing system of claim 14, wherein the hardware accelerator comprises any one of, or any combination of two or more of: an activation unit, comprising an LUT (Pillai: Fig. 10C; [0152]);
As per claim 18, Pillai/Chen further teaches A method of manufacturing, using an integrated circuit manufacturing system, a data processing system as claimed in claim 14, the method comprising: processing, using a layout processing system, a computer readable dataset description of the data processing system so as to generate a circuit layout description of an integrated circuit embodying the data processing system (Pillai: [0223]);
and manufacturing, using an integrated circuit generation system, the data processing system according to the circuit layout description (Pillai: [0221]).
As per claim 19, Pillai/Chen further teaches A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer readable dataset description of a data processing system as claimed in claim 14 that, when processed in an integrated circuit manufacturing system, causes the integrated circuit manufacturing system to manufacture an integrated circuit embodying the data processing system (Pillai: [0221]).
As per claim 20, Pillai/Chen further teaches An integrated circuit manufacturing system comprising: a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer readable dataset description of a data processing system as claimed in claim 14 (Pillai: [0221]);
a layout processing system configured to process the computer readable description so as to generate a circuit layout description of an integrated circuit embodying the data processing system (Pillai: [0223]);
and an integrated circuit generation system configured to manufacture the data processing system according to the circuit layout description (Pillai: [0222]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 17 are 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, and claims 4-5 rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph.
As to claims 2-6, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including: wherein the plurality of elementary neural network operations implements: a negation, applied to input values, to produce negated input values;
a sigmoid function, applied to the negated input values, to produce sigmoid negated values;
a reciprocal operation, applied to the sigmoid negated values, to produce reciprocal sigmoid values;
and an addition or subtraction, applied to the reciprocal sigmoid values, to subtract a constant from the reciprocal sigmoid values and thereby produce output values of the exponential operation.
Pillai discloses performing exponential operations using piecewise linear approximation ([0141]). Pillai does not suggest producing values of the exponential operations derived from sigmoid functions. Therefore, Pillai does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including the limitations identified above.
Annapureddy et al. (US 20150278680 A1, hereinafter “Annapureddy”) discloses approximating the sigmoid function using an exponential function ([0126]). Annpureddy does not suggest approximating an exponential function using a sigmoid function. Therefore, Annpureddy does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including the limitations identified above.
Shiao et al. (US 20100023569 A1 , hereinafter “Shiao”) discloses using look-up tables to produce output values for exponential functions ([0001]). Shiao does not suggest using look-up tables to evaluate sigmoid functions, then using said evaluations to producinf values of the exponential operations. Therefore, Shiao does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including the limitations identified above.
Seki (US 20130097214 A1, hereinafter “Seki”) discloses using the CORDIC algorithm to evaluate exponential computations ([0002]). Seki does not suggest evaluating exponential computations based on the sigmoid function. Therefore, Seki does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including the limitations identified above.
Shpurov et al. (US 20200244435 A1, hereinafter “Shpurov”) discloses approximating sigmoid and exponential functions as polynomials using Taylor expansions. Shpurov does not suggest approximation exponential functions based on the sigmoid function. Therefore, Shpurov does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including the limitations identified above.
As to claim 17, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including: wherein the hardware accelerator comprises the local response normalisation unit, wherein one or more of the plurality of elementary neural network operations implements a reciprocal operation, and wherein the local response normalisation unit is configured to evaluate the reciprocal operation.
Chen discloses an accelerator evaluating the reciprocal function of a sum of exponentials ([0034]). Chen does not suggest the reciprocal function is performed by LRN. Therefore, Chen does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including the limitations identified above.
Shirahta et al. (US 20200202201 A1, hereinafter “Shirahta”) discloses performing LRN with a step of taking the reciprocal ([0236]). Shirahta does not suggest using the LRN to evaluate a reciprocal operation. Therefore, Shirahta does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including the limitations identified above.
Ihor et al. (US 20210294784 A1, hereinafter “Ihor”) discloses using a lookup table for the reciprocal of an exponential function ([0092]). Ihor does not suggest evaluating the reciprocal by using LRN. Therefore, Ihor does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including the limitations identified above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHAT N LE whose telephone number is (571)272-0546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM ET.
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, Andrew T Caldwell can be reached at (571) 272-3702. 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.
/P.N.L./
Phat LeExaminer, Art Unit 2182 (571) 272-0546
/ANDREW CALDWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182
Prosecution Insights