DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on 1/30/2026. Claims 1, 8-9, 11-12, 15-19, 21-22, 24-27 and 29-32 are pending and have been examined. Claims 2-7, 10, 13-14, 20, 23 and 28 have been canceled.
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 .
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: “memory device configured to receive integer numbers”, “a compute-in-memory device configured to perform multiply-accumulate operations and generate partial sums based on the multiply-accumulate operations” (also configured to divide an input array (see claim 26)), “a decoder configured to receive the partial sums and further configured to reduce conversion overhead and improve data handling efficiency by converting to a floating-point format after the accumulation of the adjusted partial sums is completed” and “max unit block configured to determine”, “shift block configured to generate”, “shift unit for generating” in claims 1, 16-17, 26 and 29-30.
The specific structure for the memory device is interpreted to be SRAM memory (element 104 of Fig. 1, see paragraphs [0024 and 0040]) which receives integer numbers from a quantizer. The specific structure for the compute-in-memory device is interpreted to be a combination of a memory cell array coupled to computation/multiplication blocks and accumulators (see claim explicitly states the device includes a plurality of accumulators) (element 102 of Fig. 1, see paragraph [0024]) which performs multiply-accumulate operations to generate partial sums and divides an input array. The specific structure for the decoder is interpreted to be a combination of combining adders, accumulator and dequantizers (see Fig. 1, element 103). The specification appears to provide no structure for the max unit block, shift unit block or shit unit of claim 30, the units appear as black box structures in Figs. 2 and 11-12.
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.
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, 8-9, 11-12, 15-19, 21-22, 24-27 and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Claim 1 recites “A system” and thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1 recites “…generate a scaling factor based on a maximum value of floating-point numbers and to convert the floating-point numbers to integer numbers in form of an input array based on a number of bits of a mantissa of a floating-point number… perform multiply-accumulate operations on the integer numbers and to generate partial sums based on the multiply-accumulate operations, the partial sums being integers…scale the partial sums to generate adjusted partial sums, based on the scaling factor…sum the adjusted partial sums serially until a full sum in integer format is achieved… convert the full sum from the integer format to a floating-point format based on the number of bits of a mantissa of a floating-point number… to reduce conversion overhead and improve data handling efficiency by converting to the floating-point format after the accumulation of the adjusted partial sums is completed” which describe a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers mathematical relationships/calculations but for the recitation of a generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computing components (i.e., a quantizer, memory device, a compute-in-memory device, decoder, combining adder and accumulators) nothing in the claims preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper in calculation. For example, performing conversions between floating point and integer values based on a number of bits of a mantissa of a floating-point number, performing multiply-accumulate operations to generate partial sums, adjusting partial sums based on a generated scaling factor, summing adjusted partial sums to generate a full sum in integer format, and converting the full sum into a floating-point format such that the conversion is after the accumulation of adjusted partial sums to reduce conversion overhead and improve efficiency in context of the claims encompasses mathematical calculations/relationships being performed (see corresponding disclosure of Figs. 1-2 and mathematical equations on pages 9-10 of the specification). (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A)(iv)(C)).
Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships/calculations that can be performed in the mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 1 further recites additional elements of
…a quantizer…memory device…compute-in-memory device including a plurality of receiving channels and a plurality of accumulators, each of the plurality of accumulators is dedicated to a particular receiving channel of a plurality of receiving channels…decoder including a combining adder…accumulator…a dequantizer
…receive the integer numbers…configured to receive one of the partial sums generated…receive the partial sums serially…receive the partial sums
The additional elements of claim 1 do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, taken alone and in combination, because (a) recites at a high-level of generality the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or use mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). While, (b) recites insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. data gathering/outputting) (See MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
Therefore, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The additional elements of claim 1 do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, taken alone and in combination, because (a) uses mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea which cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). While, (b) recites insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering/outputting (See MPEP 2106.05 (g)), which the courts have deemed to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities that do not provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(d)); the courts have recognized that receiving or transmitting data over a network ((Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362), as well as storing and retrieving information in memory are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functionalities (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93)).
Therefore, based on the discussion of the additional elements above, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claim 8, dependent upon claim 1, further recites “…wherein a folding operation is to divide numerical values in a column of the input array into a plurality of segments”, which recites an additional abstract idea of a mathematical relationship/calculating in claim 1 (e.g. mathematical concepts). Therefore, the claim recites no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 9, dependent upon claim 8, further recites “…wherein after the folding operation, a number of elements in a single column in each segment is less than or equal to a number of elements in a vertical dimension of the compute-in-memory device”, which recites an additional abstract idea of a mathematical relationship in claim 8 (e.g. mathematical concepts). The additional limitations further tie the abstract idea to using mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea which cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim recites no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 11, dependent upon claim 1, further recites “…wherein a number of the plurality of accumulators of the compute-in-memory device is equal to a number of the receiving channels of the compute-in-memory device”, which recites an additional abstract idea of a mathematical relationship in claim 1 (e.g. mathematical concepts). The additional limitations further tie the abstract idea to using mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea which cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim recites no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 12, dependent upon claim 11, further recites “…wherein each of the plurality of accumulators is coupled to the particular receiving channel to which it is dedicated”, wherein the additional limitations further tie the abstract idea to using mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea which cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim recites no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 15, dependent upon claim 1, further recites “…wherein the combining adder is further configured to receive the partial sums and the scaling factor, the adjustment occurring prior to the accumulator of the decoder receiving the adjusted partial sums”, which recites further details of the abstract ideas of a mathematical relationship/calculation in claim 1 (e.g. mathematical concepts). The additional limitations further tie the abstract idea to using mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea which cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements further detail insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering/outputting (MPEP 2106.05(d and g)). Therefore, the claim recites no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 21, dependent upon claim 1, further recites “…wherein the quantizer is further configured to convert floating-point numbers to integer numbers based on a maximum value of an exponent of the floating-point numbers”, which recites an additional abstract idea of a mathematical relationship/calculation in claim 1 (e.g. mathematical concepts). The additional limitations further tie the abstract idea to using mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea which cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim recites no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 29, dependent upon claim 1, further recites “…wherein the plurality of receiving channels are configured to receive the input array, each of the receiving channels includes a plurality of rows, the compute- in-memory device is further configured to divide the input array into a plurality of segments such that a number of integers contained in each of the segments is less than or equal to a number of rows in each of the receiving channels”, which recites an additional abstract idea of a mathematical relationship/calculations in claim 1 (e.g. mathematical concepts). The additional limitations further tie the abstract idea to using mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea which cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements further detail insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering/outputting (MPEP 2106.05(d and g)). Therefore, the claim recites no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 30, dependent upon claim 1, further recites “…wherein the quantizer includes a max unit block and a shift unit block, the max unit block is configured to determine a maximum exponent value of the floating-point numbers, and the shift unit block is configured to generate the integer numbers, wherein when the floating-point number is in a signed mode, a shift unit for generating the integer numbers is calculated by the shift unit block according to equation 1:shift unit=num_bits-2 max_unit+exponent(i) (1) wherein when the floating-point number is in an unsigned mode, the shift unit for generating the integer numbers is calculated by the shift unit block according to equation 2: shiftunit=num_bits-1-max_unit+exponent(i) (2 )wherein num bits is the number of bits in the mantissa of the floating-point number, max unit is the maximum exponent value of the floating-point numbers, and exponent(i) is the exponent of the floating-point number”, which recites an additional abstract idea of a mathematical relationship/calculations/equations in claim 1 (e.g. mathematical concepts). The additional limitations further tie the abstract idea to using mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea which cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim recites no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 16-19, 22, 24-27 and 31-32 are similarly rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 8-9, 11-12, 15, 21 and 29.
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.
Claim 30 is 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.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-
AIA ), first paragraph, as claim 30 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) but the written
description fails to disclose each corresponding structure, material, or acts for the
claimed functions. See claim construction above (e.g. the written description fails to disclose sufficient structure of a max unit block, shift unit block, nor a shit unit for determining maximum exponent values or generating integer numbers)
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 30 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 30 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 the claimed functions. As the specification does not provide adequate disclosure, the claim boundaries are not known, thus rendering the
claim indefinite. 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; or (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it
expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, 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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10 of the remarks, filed on 1/30/2026, with respect to the respective rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 16-17 under 35 USC 112 (a-b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection(s) is made in view of 35 USC 101.
Furthermore, dependent claims 8-9, 11-12, 15, 18-19, 21-22, 24-27 and 29-32 are similarly argued based at least on their dependencies from one of claims 1 and 16-17 and therefore remain rejected based at least on their respective dependencies from one of claims 1 and 16-17 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 COURTNEY P SPANN whose telephone number is (571)431-0692. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-6pm, 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, Jyoti Mehta can be reached at 571-270-3995. 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.
/COURTNEY P SPANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183
Prosecution Insights