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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/12/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements mentioned above are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(o) because figure 1 lacks suitable descriptive legends. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The applicant’s specification, paragraph [0033] seems to contain a typographical error and should be changed to: “Np is less than [[Nb]] Nd”
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: “integration unit for carrying out a MAC operation” in claim 1.
In review of the specification, the structure of an “integration unit” is interpreted as: “the device comprising a multiplier for multiplying the weighting coefficient by the coded number, an adder and an accumulation register for accumulating the output signal of the multiplier” as disclosed in [0019], and “integration module 300 comprises a multiplier MUL, an adder ADD and an accumulation register RAC”, as disclosed in [0051] in the applicant’s specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the limitations of: “digital signal composed of samples quantized on a given number Nd of bits and intended to be processed by a digital computing system, the signal being coded by means of samples quantized on a predetermined number Np of bits which is strictly less than Nd”. It is unclear if the signal is both being quantized on a given number Nd and Np bits, or if it is meant to be understood as the digital signal is quantized on a given number Nd bits and then further parameterized into Np bit size. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets these limitations of claim 1 as: “digital signal composed of samples quantized on a given number Nd of bits and intended to be processed by a digital computing system, the quantized samples on a given number, Nd, further coded by means of parameterizing in a predetermined number Np of bits which is strictly less than Nd”.
Claims 2-11 inherit the same deficiency as claim 1 based on dependence.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1 the applicant claims a method for coding a digital signal, the method comprising:
“A computer-implemented method for coding a digital signal composed of samples quantized on a given number Nd of bits and intended to be processed by a digital computing system, the signal being coded by means of samples quantized on a predetermined number Np of bits which is strictly less than Nd, the method comprising the steps of: receiving a digital signal composed of a plurality of samples, decomposing each sample into a sum of k maximum values which are equal to 2Np-1 and a residual value, with k being a positive or zero integer, and successively transmitting the values obtained after decomposition to an integration unit for carrying out a MAC operation between the sample and a weighting coefficient.”
The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is the above italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations including intervening claims.
Wang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0234112 A1), hereinafter “Wang”, discloses an adaptive quantization with mixed precision in a network ([0004]; Fig. 4; [0031]). Wang further discloses an input quantized to 8 bits, further parameterized to 4-bits (Fig. 4; [0031]). However, Wang fails to teach or suggest the italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations as referenced above.
Diamantopoulos et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0257986 A1), hereinafter “Diamantopoulos” discloses method of quantizing weighting input values, (Fig. 6; [0048]), with a quantization to a set number of bits, then further parameterized to a strictly smaller number of bits (Fig. 6 steps 53 and 54; [0048]). However, Diamantopoulos fails to teach or suggest the italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations as referenced above.
Diril et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0205094 A1), hereinafter “Diril” discloses processing circuitry for multiply accumulate operations with mixed precision processing elements (Figs. 1-9; [0028]). Furthermore, Diril discloses an input of a bit-width parameterized into sections with smaller bit-widths for multiply-accumulate operations (Fig. 1; Fig. 2; [0035]-[0036]). However, Diril fails to teach or suggest the italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations as referenced above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEROME ANTHONY KLOSTERMAN II whose telephone number is (571)272-0541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 3:30pm 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 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.
/J.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2182
/ANDREW CALDWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182
Prosecution Insights