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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
Claim 9 recites “fixed-point to floating point circuitry”, Figure 2 refers to “floating-point recompose”.
The features specified above must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show
Paragraph 0022 refers to adder 222, Figure 2 refers to + 222.
Paragraph 0022 refers to multiplier 224, Figure 2 refers to x 224.
Paragraph 0022 refers to MUX 226, Figure 2 refers to 226.
as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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:
Paragraph 0049 refers to “second floating-point pipeline circuitry performs a first approximation”. Figure 5, reference number 520 refers to “perform, by second floating-point pipeline circuitry, a second approximation”. Claim 11 refers to “performing, by second floating-point pipeline circuitry, a second approximation”.
Paragraph 0053 refers to “compute complex 620 input/output (I/O) bridge 650”. Missing a comma after “620”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities:
Recites “natural logarithm operation for first the approximation of the base-2 logarithm”. It appears to be a typographical error. It is believed that the intended language is “natural logarithm operation for the first approximation of the base-2 logarithm”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 3-5, 9 and 13-14 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.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “to perform the approximation of the base-2 logarithm, the first pipeline circuitry is further configured to perform a second-order or greater polynomial operation”. However, the specifications discloses that the recited “second-order or greater polynomial operation” is performed by the second pipeline circuitry, rather than as claimed. (paragraphs 0033-0034)
Regarding claims 4 and 5, these claims depend from claim 3 and are rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “configured to recompose output data from the first pipeline to generate a floating-point result”. However, the specification discloses “floating-point recompose circuitry 150 is configured to perform a floating-point recomposition based on the fixed-point value received from the multiplexor circuit, to generate a floating-point result”. paragraph 0037, Figure 2)
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites “performing, by first pipeline circuitry, a second-order or greater polynomial operation for the first approximation of the base-2 logarithm”. However, the specifications discloses that the recited “second-order or greater polynomial operation” is performed by the second pipeline circuitry, rather than as claimed. (paragraphs 0033-0034). Consequently, the second pipeline circuitry performs a second approximation, rather than as claimed. (claim 11, line 5, paragraphs 0033-0034).
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites “performing, by first pipeline circuitry, a portion of a Taylor series expansion for the polynomial operation.”. However, the specification discloses that the recited “Taylor series expansion” is performed by the second pipeline circuitry, rather than as claimed (paragraphs 0033-0034, 0047). In addition, claim 14 depends from claim 13, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 6, 15, 17, and 20 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.
Claims 6, 15 and 20 recite the limitation "The value 1.0" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 17 recites the limitation "The circuit" at lines 4 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant should consider amending the claim to refer to the hardware integrated circuit at line 2.
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.
Claim 1, 6-8, 11, 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (EP 2940576 A2) in view of Thomas (U.S. Patent No. 6128638).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a circuitry for an approximation of a base-2 logarithm (paragraphs 0022, 0042), provides a fixed-unit of precision error over a range, wherein the circuitry comprises of logic chains (paragraph 0061) and a selection logic configured to select one of the logic chains in dependence on the input variable (paragraph 0007, lines 15-16).
Lee fails to disclose the conversion of real numbers into floating-point or fixed-point formats.
However, Thomas discloses a system conversion of floating-point or fixed-point format with the usage of lookup tables. (column 2, lines 1- 26, column 3, lines 59-63)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the design of the circuit of Lee, to be able to convert Lee’s real numbers into either floating-point or fixed point as taught by Thomas, in order to do the mathematical function taught by Lee. This modification would have been obvious because with the availability of multiple formats, the technique can be used for other comparable environments, including other software interfaces to graphics hardware, other operating systems and other windowing systems. It can be implemented on the hardware of any computer system or processor, embedded processor, integrated circuit or chip. It may be implemented using hardware, software or a combination thereof and may be implemented in a computer system or other processing system. (column 3, lines 47-52, column 11, lines 29-32)
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses values that include the value 1.0 (Figure 1 and Figure 3).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses that the range of inputs are nonoverlapping. Multiplier 203 operates over the range of the line segment 303 in figure 3 (from 1 to 1.25), multiplier 204 operates over the range of line segment 304 (from 1.25 to 1.5), and multiplier 205 operates over the range of line segment 305 (from 1.5 to 2). (paragraph 0054, lines 4-6)
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lee in view of Thomas teaches a system wherein the first pipeline circuitry is configured to perform fixed point operations on a mantissa of an input operand (Lee’s circuitry performing fixed point operations on the converted floating point operand as taught by Thomas).
Regarding claims 11 and 15-17, they are method claims corresponding to apparatus claims 1 and 6-8, respectively. They are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claims 17 and 20, they are media claims corresponding to apparatus claim 1 and 6, respectively. They are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 2, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Thomas and further in view of Mansour (A New Floating-Point Implementation of Base 2 Logarithm).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lee in view of Thomas teaches the invention substantially as claimed. See the rejection of claim 1 above. Lee also discloses logic chains configured to approximate a mathematical function (paragraph 0042), a mathematical function that may be a base-2 logarithm (paragraph 0022). The combination of Lee in view of Thomas does not disclose that the approximation of a base-2 logarithm is performed using a natural logarithm.
Mansour discloses the conversion equation between base-2 logarithms and natural logarithms. (page 1286, lines 17-18, equation 10)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to apply the known property of logarithms to switch from base-2 logarithm to natural logarithm.
Regarding claim 12, it is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 2. It is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, it is a media claim corresponding to apparatus claim 2. It is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 3-4, 13-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Thomas and Mansour and in further view of Anup (U.S. Patent No. 11106430 B1)
Regarding claim 3, The combination of Lee in view of Thomas and Mansour teaches the invention substantially as claimed. See the rejection of claim 2 above. The combination of Lee in view of Thomas and Mansour does not disclose the use of second-order or greater polynomial operation as a portion of a Taylor series expansion.
Anup discloses the implementation of look-up tables used for polynomial approximation using Taylor series expansion. (column 14, lines 6 -24)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the design circuit of the combination of Lee in view of Thomas and Mansour, to be able to implement look-up tables taught by Anup, to compute the input value using the Taylor Series approximation. This modification would have been obvious because with the use of Taylor series expansion, the accuracy of the output value increases as number of terms increases. (Mansour: page 1286, column 1, lines 21-22)
Regarding claim 4, The combination of Lee in view of Thomas and Mansour teaches the invention substantially as claimed. See the rejection of claim 3 above. The combination of Lee in view of Thomas and Mansour does not disclose the use of second-order or greater polynomial operation as a portion of a Taylor series expansion.
Anup discloses the implementation of look-up tables used for polynomial approximation using Taylor series expansion. (column 14, lines 6 -24)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the design circuit of the combination of Lee in view of Thomas and Mansour, to be able to implement look-up tables taught by Anup, to compute the input value using the Taylor Series approximation. This modification would have been obvious because with the use of Taylor series expansion, the accuracy of the output value increases as number of terms increases. (Mansour: page 1286, column 1, lines 21-22)
Regarding claims 13-14, they are method claims corresponding to apparatus claims 3-4, respectively. They are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19, it is a media claim corresponding to apparatus claim 3. It is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Thomas, Mansour and Anup and in further view of Catrina (Multiparty Computation of Fixed-Point Multiplication and Reciprocal).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lee in view of Thomas, Mansour and Anup discloses logic chains comprising of multiplier and adders. Furthermore, the combination discloses the logic chains configured to utilize the look-up table to compute a portion of a Taylor series approximation. The combination of Lee in view of Thomas, Mansour and Anup does not disclose one or more division operations for the polynomial operation.
Catrina discloses the well-known mathematical relationship that division can be implemented as multiplication by a reciprocal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to implement the claimed division operation using the multipliers taught by the combination of Lee in view of Thomas, Mansour and Anup, by multiplying by the reciprocal(inverse) of the divisor. It is a well-known and fundamental mathematical equivalence that division by a value can be achieved through multiplication by its reciprocal (i.e., a/b = a(1/b)).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such a substitution represents predictable use of known mathematical relationships to achieve the same result, and therefore would have been an obvious design choice in view of the combined teachings of Lee, Thomas, Mansour and Anup, further supported by Catrina.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Thomas and in further view of Frantz (Comparing Fixed- and Floating-Point DSPs)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lee in view of Thomas teaches the invention substantially as claimed. See the rejection of claim 1 above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the design circuit of Lee, to be able to include the conversion functionality taught by Thomas, in order to recompose the output data to a floating-point result. This modification would have been obvious because floating-point format offers the best solution for precision and a wider dynamic range. (page 7)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Thomas and in further view of Imber (EP 4050522B1)
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Lee in view of Thomas teaches the invention substantially as claimed. See the rejection of claim 1 above.
Imber teaches a computer system in which a data processing system is implemented. (paragraph 0066, line 33, Figure 13)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to implement the design circuit of the combination of Lee in view of Thomas within the computer system of Imber, because Imber provides a known and conventional environment for executing data processing operations. Such an implementation would have yielded predictable results and allowed the circuit to be integrated into a broader data processing system for improved functionality and interoperability.
Conclusion
The Taylor series is defined such that “the partial sum formed by the first n + 1 terms of a Taylor series is a polynomial of degree n that is called the nth Taylor polynomial of the function”. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “second-order or greater polynomial” can be interpreted as a “portion of a Taylor series expansion.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAIME JOSE CUEBAS RUIZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9131. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/JC/JAIME JOSE CUEBAS RUIZ
Examiner, Art Unit 2182 (571)272-9131
/ANDREW CALDWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182
Prosecution Insights