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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendments filed on August 11, 2026.
This action claims priority to Korean applications KR10-2019-0124396, filed October 8, 2019, and KR10-2020-0120585, filed September 18, 2020.
Claims 1-18 are currently pending.
Claims 1-18 have been amended.
Claims 19 and 20 have been cancelled.
Specification
The amended title of the invention, “Apparatus and Method for Generating Target Code for Deep Learning Inference,” is accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 3 has been amended to recite: “wherein the operation-centered instruction instruction corresponds…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “the processor on which the first target code is executed…” Claim 4, which claim 5 depends from, recites “a type of processor on which the first target code is to be executed…” Claim 4 does not require the execution of code due to the “to be executed” which renders claim 5 indefinite.
The previous rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 19, under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), due to the recitation of “separating the executable code into General-Purpose Language (GPL) code and Domain-Specific Language (DSL) code depending on whether an acceleration operation is required,” is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
The rejection of claims 2, 3, 11, and 12, under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), due to the recitation of “depending on whether the executable code is an operation-centered instruction as a result of analysis of the executable code,” is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
The previous rejection of claims 6, 15 and 20, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), due to the term “beneficial,” is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
Additionally, the previous rejection of claims 8, 9, 17, and 18, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g. mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined in step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If it is determined that step 2A, Prong that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
According to Step 1 of the analysis, in the instant case claims 1-9 are directed to an method and claims 10-18 are directed to an apparatus. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Independent claim 1: considering Step 2A, Prong One, the limitations in claim 1 including: “converting an application based on a deep-learning neural network into executable code in a high-level language independent of a learning framework,” “identifying an operation-centered instruction in the executable code, wherein the operation-centered instruction corresponds to an inference operation of the deep-learning neural network,” “separating, from the executable, code a first code portion not corresponding to the identified operation-centered instruction and a second code portion corresponding o the identified operation-centered instruction,” and “generating target code based on the first code portion and the second code portion for hardware on which the application is to be executed,” covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components.
MPEP 2106.04.(a)(2)(III) details “the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” The claimed “converting,” “identifying,” “separating,” and “generating” are observations, evaluations, and judgments. For example, a human is capable of writing executable code in a high-level language, independent of a learning framework; this would be observation, evaluation, and judgment. A human is also capable of identifying and separating executable code as this would also be an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Lastly, a human is capable of generating target code; this is an evaluation/judgment.
Considering Step 2A, Prong Two, and Step 2B, claim 1 does not contain any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 2, dependent on claim 1, recites “identifying the operation-centered instruction comprises identifying the operation-centered instruction based on instruction information of a neural-network framework” is a mental step, observation, evaluation, and judgment. Claim 2 does not include any new additional elements.
Claim 3, dependent on claim 1, recites only additional elements and is not rejected under 101. However, if the language from claim 3 were to be incorporated into claim 1 the additional elements would be analyzed according to the two-step process.
Claim 4, dependent on claim 1, recites “wherein generating the target code comprises: generating first target code from the first code portion according to a type of processor on which the first target code is to be executed; and generating second target code from the second code portion according to a type of processor on which the second target code is executed” is a mental step, observation, evaluation, and judgment. Claim 4 does not include any additional elements. The processors are not being positively claimed because the code “is to be” executed. One can write code, for particular hardware, on paper that is to be executed on hardware, and, therefore, the claim recites only mental steps.
Claim 5, dependent on claim 4, recites only additional elements and is not rejected under 101. However, if the language from claim 5 were to be incorporated into claim 1 the additional elements would be analyzed according to the two-step process.
Claim 6, dependent on claim 5, recites “wherein generating the target code is configured to generate the target code from the second code portion is based on at least one of a type of an accelerator included in the hardware and a number of accelerators included in the hardware” is a mental step, observation, evaluation, and judgment. Claim 6 does not include any new additional elements.
Claim 7, dependent on claim 6, recites “wherein generating the target code from the second code portion comprises: determining whether an accelerator is included in the hardware; generating target code from the second code portion of execution on a central processing unit (CPU) when the accelerator is not included in the hardware; and generating target code from the second code portion for execution on the accelerator when the accelerator is included generating target code from the second code portion for execution on the accelerator when the accelerator is included in the hardware” is a mental step, observation, evaluation, and judgment. Claim 7 includes the additional elements “an accelerator is present in the hardware.” The accelerator is not detailed and are generic computer components that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more; see MPEP 2106.05(b) and 2106.05(d). The CPU is not being positively claimed because the code is generated for execution on a CPU. One can write code, for particular hardware, on paper that is to be executed on hardware, and, therefore, the claim recites only mental steps.
Claim 8, dependent on claim 1, recites only additional elements and is not rejected under 101. However, if the language from claim 8 were to be incorporated into claim 1 the additional elements would be analyzed according to the two-step process.
Claim 9, dependent on claim 1, recites only additional elements and is not rejected under 101. However, if the language from claim 9 were to be incorporated into claim 1 the additional elements would be analyzed according to the two-step process.
Independent claim 10: considering Step 2A, Prong One, the limitations in claim 10 including: “convert an application based on a deep-learning neural network into executable code in a high-level language independent of a learning framework,” “identify an operation-centered instruction in the executable code, wherein the operation-centered instruction corresponds to an inference operation of the deep-learning neural network,” “separate, from the executable, code a first code portion not corresponding to the identified operation-centered instruction and a second code portion corresponding o the identified operation-centered instruction,” and “generate target code based on the first code portion and the second code portion for hardware on which the application is to be executed,” covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components.
MPEP 2106.04.(a)(2)(III) details “the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” The claimed converting, identifying, separating, and generating are observations, evaluations, and judgments. For example, a human is capable of writing executable code in a high-level language, independent of a learning framework; this would be observation, evaluation, and judgment. A human is also capable of identifying and separating executable code as this would also be an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Lastly, a human is capable of generating target code; this is an evaluation/judgment.
Considering Step 2A, Prong Two, and Step 2B, claim 10 contains additional elements “an apparatus,” a memory,” and “a processor.” But the judicial exception in claim 10 is not integrated into a practical application. The “apparatus,” “memory,” and “processor” are generic components that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more under Step 2B; see MPEP 2106.05(b) and 2106.05(d).
Claim 11, dependent on claim 10, recites only additional elements and is not rejected under 101. However, if the language from claim 11 were to be incorporated into claim 10 the additional elements would be analyzed according to the two-step process.
Claim 12, dependent on claim 1, recites “identify an operation-centered instruction based on instruction information of a neural-network framework” is a mental step, observation, evaluation, and judgment. Claim 12 does not include any new additional elements.
Claim 13, dependent on claim 10, recites “generating first target code from the first code portion according to a type of processor on which the first target code is to be executed; and generating second target code from the second code portion according to a type of processor on which the second target code is executed” is a mental step, observation, evaluation, and judgment. Claim 4 does not include any additional elements. The processors are not being positively claimed because the code “is to be” executed. One can write code, for particular hardware, on paper that is to be executed on hardware, and, therefore, the claim recites only mental steps.
Claim 14, dependent on claim 13, recites only additional elements and is not rejected under 101. However, if the language from claim 14 were to be incorporated into claim 10 the additional elements would be analyzed according to the two-step process.
Claim 15, dependent on claim 10, recites “wherein the processor is configured to generate the target code from the second code portion is based on at least one of a type of an accelerator included in the hardware and a number of accelerators included in the hardware” is a mental step, observation, evaluation, and judgment. Claim 6 does not include any new additional elements.
Claim 16, dependent on claim 10, recites “wherein generating the target code from the second code portion comprises: determining whether an accelerator is included in the hardware; generating target code from the second code portion of execution on a central processing unit (CPU) when the accelerator is not included in the hardware; and generating target code from the second code portion for execution on the accelerator when the accelerator is included generating target code from the second code portion for execution on the accelerator when the accelerator is included in the hardware” is a mental step, observation, evaluation, and judgment. Claim 7 includes the additional elements “an accelerator is present in the hardware.” The accelerator is not detailed and are generic computer components that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more; see MPEP 2106.05(b) and 2106.05(d). The CPU is not being positively claimed because the code is generated for execution on a CPU. One can write code, for particular hardware, on paper that is to be executed on hardware, and, therefore, the claim recites only mental steps.
Claim 17, dependent on claim 10, recites only additional elements and is not rejected under 101. However, if the language from claim 17 were to be incorporated into claim 10 the additional elements would be analyzed according to the two-step process.
Claim 18, dependent on claim 10, recites only additional elements and is not rejected under 101. However, if the language from claim 18 were to be incorporated into claim 10 the additional elements would be analyzed according to the two-step process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Beginning on page 11 of remarks, Applicant argues that the amended claims are eligible in view of 101 because the claims are directed to a specific technical process that generates target code for deep learning inference, and that the claims provide significantly more than the abstract idea because the claims are directed to generating hardware-executable target code based on identified operation-centered instructions. As indicated above, the “generating” and “identifying” limitations are considered mental processes, not additional elements that may amount to significantly more; see MPEP 2106.05. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
On page 12, Applicant argues that the previous rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been overcome. Examiner agrees, as indicated above. However, new 112 issues have been identified above and need to be resolved.
Conclusion
Claims 1-18 are rejected.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL T PELLETT whose telephone number is (571)270-7156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5 EST.
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, Li Zhen can be reached on 571-272-3768. 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.
/DANIEL T PELLETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2121
Prosecution Insights