DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This non-final office action is in response to the RCE filed 10 June 2026 and the amendment filed 8 May 2026.
Claims 1-25 are pending. Claims 1, 11, and 21 are independent claims.
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 1-25 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the PE array (lines 14-15).” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The examiner notes that the amendment filed 8 May 2026 has removed the antecedent basis for “the PE array” in lines 4-5. Instead, the claim now recites a “plurality of hardware tiles having different tile sizes, each hardware tile comprising a plurality of processing elements (PEs) arranged in PE columns and PE rows, wherein a tile size of each hardware tile is determined by a total number of PE columns and a total number of PE rows (lines 4-8).
Claims 2-10 fail to cure the deficiency of independent claim 1. Claims 2-10 are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 11 recite the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 1. Claim 11 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 12-20 fail to cure the deficiency of independent claim 11. Claims 12-20 are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 21 recite the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 1. Claim 21 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 22-25 fail to cure the deficiency of independent claim 21. Claims 22-25 are rejected under similar rationale.
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 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
According to Step 1 of the two Step analysis, claims 1-7 are directed toward a process. Claims 8-20 are directed toward a machine. Therefore, each of these claims falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 1:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
identifying a hardware tile set for executing tensor operations in a deep neural network (DNN), the hardware tile set included in a DNN accelerator, the hardware tile set comprising a plurality of hardware tiles having different tile sizes, each hardware tile comprising a plurality of processing elements (PEs) arranged in a PE columns and PE rows, wherein a tile size of each hardware tile is determined by a total number of PE columns and a total number of PE rows (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a judgement to identify a hardware tile, each hardware tile having a different tile size and comprising PEs arranged in columns and rows)
selecting a hardware tile from the plurality of hardware tiles for a convolutional layer in the DNN based on a tile size of the hardware tile (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a judgement to select a hardware tile based on the size of the hardware tile)
determining a dimensions of an output tensor of the convolutional layer, the output tensor being a result of a convolutional operation to be performed by the PE array on an input tensor and a filter (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation to determine the dimensions of the output tensor based on the convolutional operation to be performed)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
partitioning the output tensor into output tensor segments based on a size of the PE array
The claim further recites partitioning the output tensor into tensor segments, which is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites the additional element:
assigning workloads of generating the output tensor segments to a group of PEs in the hardware tile, wherein each PE in the group is to receive a workload of generating a respective output tensor segment and to perform a multiply-accumulation (MAC) operation for generating the respective output tensor segment
In particular, the claimed additional element of amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
partitioning the output tensor into output tensor segments based on a size of the PE array
The claim further recites partitioning the output tensor into tensor segments, which is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites the additional element:
assigning workloads of generating the output tensor segments to a group of PEs in the hardware tile, wherein each PE in the group is to receive a workload of generating a respective output tensor segment and to perform a multiply-accumulation (MAC) operation for generating the respective output tensor segment
In particular, the claimed additional element of amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2:
With respect to claim 2, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
wherein the identifying the time set for executing the tensor operations in the DNN further comprises: determining dimensions of output tensors of a plurality of convolutional layers in the DNN (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a judgement to determine dimensions of output tensors of a plurality of convolutional layers in the DNN)
identifying a set of dimensions from the dimensions of the output tensors, wherein the set of dimensions are dimensions of output tensors of multiple convolutional layers of the plurality of convolutional layers (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an observation to identify a set of dimensions from the dimensions of the output tensors)
identifying the tile set from a plurality of tile sets based on the set of dimensions, wherein each of the plurality of tile sets is a combination of different hardware tiles (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation to identify a tile set from a plurality of tiles sets based on the set of dimensions of each of the plurality of tile sets)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim does not recite any additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B:
The claim does not recite any additional elements considered under Step 2B.
Claim 3:
With respect to claim 3, the claim depends upon claim 2. The analysis of claim 2 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
wherein the identifying the time set for executing the tensor operations in the DNN further comprises: identifying the plurality of convolutional layers from all convolutional layers in the DNN, wherein dimensions of the plurality of convolutional layers are within one or more predetermined dimension ranges (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an observation to identify the plurality of convolutional layers from all convolutional layers within one or more predetermined dimension ranges)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim does not recite any additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B:
The claim does not recite any additional elements considered under Step 2B.
Claim 4:
With respect to claim 4, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
wherein selecting the hardware tile from among the plurality of hardware tiles for the convolutional layer in the DNN comprises: selecting a group of hardware tiles from the plurality of hardware tiles for the convolutional layer in the DNN, wherein the group of hardware tiles comprises the hardware tile (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a judgement to select a group of hardware tiles)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim does not recite any additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B:
The claim does not recite any additional elements considered under Step 2B.
Claim 5:
With respect to claim 5, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
wherein determining dimensions of the output tensor or the convolutional layer comprises: determining the dimension of the output tensor based on dimensions of the input tensor, a number of kernels in the filter, the dimensions of the kernels (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an observation to determine the dimensions of the input tensor, the number of kernels in the filter, and the dimensions of the kernel)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim does not recite any additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B:
The claim does not recite any additional elements considered under Step 2B.
Claim 6:
With respect to claim 6, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites the abstract idea identified with respect to claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
the output tensor comprises a set of output channels
each output channel comprising a matrix
the dimensions of the output tensor comprise a first dimension indicating a number of elements in a row in the matrix, a second dimension indicating a number of elements in a column in the matrix, and a third dimension indicating a number of output channels in the set of output channels
The claim further recites elements which are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements:
the output tensor comprises a set of output channels
each output channel comprising a matrix
the dimensions of the output tensor comprise a first dimension indicating a number of elements in a row in the matrix, a second dimension indicating a number of elements in a column in the matrix, and a third dimension indicating a number of output channels in the set of output channels
The claim further recites elements which are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7:
With respect to claim 7, the claim depends upon claim 6. The analysis of claim 6 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
determining a fourth dimension and a fifth dimension of each output tensor segment based on the total number of PE columns (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an observation to determine the dimensions where one dimension is columns, one dimension is rows, and one is output channels)
determining a sixth dimension based on the total number of PE rows (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an observation to determine the dimensions where one dimension is columns, one dimension is rows, and one is output channels)
wherein the fourth dimension indicates a number of elements in a row in the matrix, the fifth dimension indicates a number of elements in the column in the matrix, and the sixth dimension indicates a number of output channels in the set of output channels (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an observation to determine the dimensions where one dimension is columns, one dimension is rows, and one is output channels)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim does not recite any additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B:
The claim does not recite any additional elements considered under Step 2B.
Claim 8:
With respect to claim 8, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
for a workload of generating an output tensor segment, identifying a segment of the input tensor and a segment of the filter (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an observation to identify a segment of the input tensor and a segment of the filter)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
transmitting the segment of the input tensor and the segment of the filter into a PE in the group, wherein the PE is to perform one or more MAC operations on the segment of the input tensor an the segment of the filter and to output the output tensor segment
The additional element amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements:
transmitting the segment of the input tensor and the segment of the filter into a PE in the group, wherein the PE is to perform one or more MAC operations on the segment of the input tensor an the segment of the filter and to output the output tensor segment
The additional element amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9:
With respect to claim 9, the claim depends upon claim 8. The analysis of claim 8 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites the abstract idea identified with respect to claim 8.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
an input register file for storing the segment of the input tensor
a weight register file for storing the segment of the filter
an output register file for storing the output tensor segment
a MAC unit for performing the one or more MAC operations
The claim further recites elements which are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements:
an input register file for storing the segment of the input tensor
a weight register file for storing the segment of the filter
an output register file for storing the output tensor segment
a MAC unit for performing the one or more MAC operations
The claim further recites elements which are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10:
With respect to claim 10, the claim depends upon claim 8. The analysis of claim 8 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites the abstract idea identified with respect to claim 8.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the input tensor comprises one or more integer values or one or more floating point values
The additional element amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the input tensor comprises one or more integer values or one or more floating point values
The additional element amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11:
With respect to claim 11, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites the abstract idea identified with respect to claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable to perform operations for deep learning
The additional element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable to perform operations for deep learning
The additional element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 12-20:
With respect to claims 12-20, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claims 2-10, respectively. The analysis of claims 2-10 is incorporated herein by reference.
Claim 21:
With respect to claim 21, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites the abstract idea identified with respect to claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
a deep neural network (DNN) accelerator
The additional element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
a deep neural network (DNN) accelerator
The additional element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 22:
With respect to claim 22, the claim depends upon claim 21. The analysis of claim 21 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites the abstract idea identified with respect to claim 21.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the DNN accelerators further comprises a plurality of tile sets that includes the tile set, and each of the plurality of the tile sets is a combination of different hardware tiles
The additional element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the DNN accelerators further comprises a plurality of tile sets that includes the tile set, and each of the plurality of the tile sets is a combination of different hardware tiles
The additional element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 23:
With respect to claim 23, the claim depends upon claim 21. The analysis of claim 21 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
wherein the DNN comprises a plurality of convolutional layers, and the tile set is selected from the plurality of tile sets based on one or more of the plurality of convolutional layers (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a judgement to select a tile set from among the plurality of convolutional layers)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim does not recite any additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B:
The claim does not recite any additional elements considered under Step 2B.
Claims 24-25:
With respect to claims 24-25, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claims 6 and 9, respectively. The analysis of claims 6 and 9 is incorporated herein by reference.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE R STORK whose telephone number is (571)272-4130. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 2pm; 4pm - 6pm.
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, Omar Fernandez Rivas can be reached at 571/272-2589. 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.
/KYLE R STORK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights