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 response filed 19 December 2025.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims.
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 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 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 USC 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; MPEP 2106.03). If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed toward a judicial exception (Step 2A; MPEP 2106.04). This step is broken into two prongs.
The first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1) determines 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 at Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2; MPEP 2106.04). The second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2) determines whether the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determine whether the claim is a patent-eligible exception (Step 2B; MPEP 2106.05).
If an abstract idea is present int the claim, in order to recite statutory subject matter, 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 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see: 2019 PEG).
Step 1:
According to Step 1 of the two Step analysis, claims 1-2 and 4-6 are directed toward a non-transitory machine-readable medium (manufacture). Claims 8-9 and 11-14 are directed toward a method (process). Claims 15-16 and 18-20 are directed toward a system (machine). Therefore, each of these claims falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 1:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Following the determination that the claims fall within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), it must be determined if the claims recite a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1). In this instance, the claims are determined to recite a judicial exception (abstract idea; mental process).
With respect to independent claim 1, the claim recites:
using a window to select a first set of elements in a vector of elements (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 performing an observation to narrow a set of elements in a vector into a smaller subset, those within a “window”)
incrementally sliding the window along the vector by a defined number of elements such that the window sequentially assumes multiple different positions relative to the vector, wherein sets of elements included within the window at each consecutive pair of the multiple different positions share at least one common element (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 performing an observation to narrow the set of elements in a vector into sequential subsets of elements within the “window.” This includes performing an evaluation on a first subset of elements within the “window” at the initial position and subsequently moving the “window” to include a second subset of elements to be evaluated)
at each of the multiple different positions of the window, selecting an element having a highest absolute value and adding the element to an array of selected elements (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 performing an evaluation to determine the element within the “window” having the largest absolute value and recording it in an array)
creating a sparsified vector from the vector by retaining elements in the vector that are included in the array of selected elements and replacing other elements in the vector with a defined value (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 performing an evaluation for elements across the entirety of the vector using the “window” and recording the elements having the largest absolute values in an array. Each of these values may be recorded with the aid of a pencil and paper while the remaining values are recorded as defined value to create the sparsified vector array)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
The claims disclose the following additional element:
a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing a program executable by at least one processing unit of a device, the program comprising sets of instructions
These elements 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)).
Further, the claim recites the additional element:
during training operation of a neural network, reducing computational overhead by performing a matrix multiplication operation on the sparsified vector instead of the vector, wherein the matrix multiplication operation entails multiplying the sparsified vector by a set of weights or activation values
In this instance, the training is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (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:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
The claims disclose the following additional element:
a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing a program executable by at least one processing unit of a device, the program comprising sets of instructions
These elements 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)).
Further, the claim recites the additional element:
during training operation of a neural network, reducing computational overhead by performing a matrix multiplication operation on the sparsified vector instead of the vector, wherein the matrix multiplication operation entails multiplying the sparsified vector by a set of weights or activation values
In this instance, the training is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2:
With respect to dependent claim 2, the claim depends upon independent claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
With respect to claim 2, the claim recites:
wherein the sparsified vector includes a first selected element and a second selected element, wherein… multiplying the first and second element in the sparsified vector with corresponding elements in an activation vector or a weight vector (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 performing evaluation of multiplying elements within the sparsified vector by corresponding elements in an activation vector or a weight vector)
Claim 4:
With respect to dependent claim 4, the claim depends upon dependent claim 2. The analysis of claim 2 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
With respect to claim 4, the claim recites:
wherein the first selected element is selected from the window when the window is at a first position of the multiple different positions and the first selected element resides at an index that is also included within the window when the window is at a second position of the multiple different positions, and wherein the first selected element is excluded from selection consideration when selecting the second selected element from the window at the second position (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 performing an observation that the element selected as the element having the highest absolute value while the window is in a first position remains in the window while it is in the second position. Based upon this observation, when performing the evaluation of the element having the highest absolute value is performed, excluding that element)
Claim 5:
With respect to dependent claim 5, the claim depends upon independent claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
With respect to claim 5, the claim recites:
after selecting a first element from the firs set of elements while the window is at a first position and before selecting the second element from a set of elements while the window is at a second position… modifying a value of the first element in the vector to the defined value (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 performing an evaluation for elements across the entirety of the vector using the “window” and recording the elements having the largest absolute values in an array. Each of these values may be recorded with the aid of a pencil and paper while the remaining values are recorded as defined value to create the sparsified vector array)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
The claims disclose the following additional element:
storing the first element
These elements 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:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
The claims disclose the following additional element:
storing the first element
These elements 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)).
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6:
With respect to dependent claim 6, the claim depends upon independent claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
With respect to claim 6, the claim recites:
wherein the window, when positioned at one of multiple different positions, includes a third set of elements from a first end of the vector and a fourth set of elements from a second end of the vector (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 performing an observation to narrow the set of elements in a vector into sequential subsets of elements within the “window.” This includes performing an evaluation on a first subset of elements within the “window” at the initial position having a third set of element from a first end and a fourth subset of element from a second end of the vector to be evaluated)
Claim 7:
With respect to dependent claim 7, the claim depends upon dependent claim 2. The analysis of claim 2 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
With respect to claim 7, the claim recites:
wherein the first selected element and the second selected element are different elements in a vector (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 performing an observation and evaluation to insure that the first selected element and second selected elements are different elements)
Claims 8-9 and 11-14:
With respect to claims 8-9 and 11-14, the claim recites the elements substantially similar to those in claims 1-2 and 4-7, respectively. Claims 8-9 and 11-14 are rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 15-16 and 18-20:
With respect to claims 15-16 and 18-20, the claim recites the elements substantially similar to those in claims 1-2 and 4-6, respectively. Claims 15-16 and 18-20 are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 15:
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claims disclose the following additional element:
a set of processing units
a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by at least one processing unit in the set of processing units cause the at least one processing unit to [perform operations]
These elements 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:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
The claims disclose the following additional element:
a set of processing units
a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by at least one processing unit in the set of processing units cause the at least one processing unit to [perform operations]
These elements 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)).
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xi et al. (Wide Sliding Window and Subsampling Network for Hyperspectral Image Classification, 2021, hereafter Xi) and further in view of Zhuo et al. (US 2022/0207374, filed 2 November 2021, hereafter Zhuo) and further in view of Klaedtke (US 11546263, filed 5 October 2021), and further in view of Zhu et al. (US 2021/0065005, filed 23 July 2020, hereafter Zhu).
As per independent claim 1, Xi discloses:
using a window to select a first set of elements in a vector of elements (Figure 1; Section 2: Here, a wide sliding window and subsampling network (WSWS Net) is shown. The WSWS is used to construct a wide transform kernel layers using a sliding window, sorting, and subsampling. For hyperspectral images (HSI) classification, the size of the sliding window is chose and a number of instances are identified (Section 2.2). The input data or features may include N sliding windows (Figure 2), including a first sliding window for selecting a first set of elements in a vector of elements (Section 2.1))
incrementally sliding the window along the vector by a defined number of elements such that the window sequentially assumes multiple different positions relative to the vector (Section 2.2: Here, the sliding by a defined number of elements is defined by the number of Gaussian kernels for the nth sliding time)
at each of the multiple different positions of the window, selecting an element (Figure 2: Here, a number of instances is selected based upon the outputting and sorting of each set of Gaussian kernels (Section 2.2))
creating a sparsified vector from the vector by retaining elements in the vector that are included in the array of selected elements and replacing other elements in the vector with a defined value
during training operations of the neural network, reducing computational overhead by performing a matrix multiplication operation on the sparsified vector instead of the vector, wherein the matrix multiplication operation entails multiplying the sparsified vector by a set of weights or activation values
Xi fails to specifically disclose creating a sparsified vector by sliding the window along the vector by a defined number of elements and retaining elements in the vector that are included in the array of selected elements.
Finally, Zhuo, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward sparsifying a vector in an iterative manner, discloses creating a sparsified vector by sliding the window along the vector by a defined number of elements and retaining elements in the vector that are included in the array of selected elements (Figure 2; paragraphs 0011-0020: Here, a sparsified vector is generated using amplitude-based pruning to maintain elements having the highest absolute value within the window, wherein the window is a vector row. After performing pruning on a row, additional rows are processed for pruning). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Zhuo with Xi, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for optimizing sparsity by adjusting sparsity to improve model accuracy (Zhuo: paragraph 0023).
Xi fails to specifically disclose:
wherein sets of elements included within the window at each consecutive pair of the multiple different positions share at least one common element
a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing a program executable by at least one processing unit of a device
However, Klaedtke, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward using a sliding window to analyze streaming data, discloses wherein sets of elements included within the window at each consecutive pair of the multiple different positions share at least one common element (column 7, lines 2-19: Here, aggregation is performed over sliding windows. This is performed by moving a sliding window forward or backward over a set of stream elements, wherein the windows may overlap (Figure 3)) and a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing a program executable by at least one processing unit of a device (claim 15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Klaedtke with Xi-Zhuo, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for processing data items within a time period (Klaedtke: column 2, lines 2-19).
Further, Xi fails to specifically disclose:
selecting an element having a highest absolute value and adding the element to an array of selected elements
creating a sparsified vector from the vector by retaining elements in the vector that are included in the array of selected elements and replacing other elements in the vector with a defined value
during training operations of a neural network, reducing computational overhead by performing a matrix multiplication operation on the sparsified vector instead of the vector, wherein the matrix multiplication operation entails multiplying the sparsified vector by a set of weights or activation values
However, Zhu, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward:
selecting an element having a highest absolute value and adding the element to an array of selected elements (Figure 3A; paragraph 0059)
creating a sparsified vector from the vector by retaining elements in the vector that are included in the array of selected elements and replacing other elements in the vector with a defined value (Figure 3A; paragraph 0059: Here, a matrix is sparsified by selecting elements having the four largest absolute values and zeroing out non-selected elements to reduce the number of calculations required)
during training operations of a neural network, reducing computational overhead by performing a matrix multiplication operation on the sparsified vector instead of the vector (Figure 3; paragraph 0059), wherein the matrix multiplication operation entails multiplying the sparsified vector by a set of weights or activation values (Figure 3; paragraphs 0059-0061 and 0105: Here, matrix multiplication is implemented using Cutlass and using a weight matrix (paragraph 0058))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Zhu with Xi-Zhuo-Klaedtke, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for lower overhead when performing matrix multiplication (Zhu: paragraph 0059).
As per dependent claim 2, Xie, Zhuo, Klaedtke, and Zhu disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Further, Zhu discloses wherein the sparsified vector includes a firs select element and a second selected element (Figure 3A), wherein the program further comprises a set of instructions for multiplying the first selected element and the second selected element in the sparsified vector with a corresponding element in an activation vector or a weight vector (Figure 3; paragraphs 0059-0061 and 0105: Here, matrix multiplication is implemented using Cutlass and using a weight matrix (paragraph 0058))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Zhu with Xi-Klaedtke, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for lower overhead when performing matrix multiplication (Zhu: paragraph 0059).
As per dependent claim 4, Xie, Zhuo, Klaedtke, and Zhu disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Xi discloses at each of the multiple different positions of the window, selecting an element (Figure 2: Here, a number of instances is selected based upon the outputting and sorting of each set of Gaussian kernels (Section 2.2)).
Further, Zhu discloses wherein the first selected element is selected from a first position of the multiple different positions and the first selected element resides at an index that is also included a second position of the multiple different positions, and wherein the first selected element is excluded from selection consideration when selecting the second selected element from the second position (Figure 3; paragraphs 0058-0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Zhu with Xie-Klaedtke, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for lower overhead when performing matrix multiplication (Zhu: paragraph 0059).
As per dependent claim 6, Xie, Zhuo, Klaedtke, and Zhu disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Xi discloses wherein the second set of elements comprises a third set of elements from a first end of the vector and a fourth set of elements from a second end of the vector (Section 2.3: Here, a 3D patch of pixels are flattened to define the vector cascading along spectral bands (Section 2.1). The patches are fed into Gaussian Kernels, which are extended by sliding windows (Section 2.2). Each patch includes an element at the top (first end) and bottom (second end) of the vector (Figure 2)).
As per dependent claim 7, Xie, Zhuo, Klaedtke, and Zhu disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Xi discloses wherein the first element and the second element are different elements in the vector (Figure 3).
With respect to claims 8-9, 11, and 13-14, the applicant discloses the limitations substantially similar to those in claims 1-2, 4, and 6-7, respectively. Claims 8-9, 11 and 13-14 are similarly rejected.
With respect to claims 15-16, 18, and 20, the applicant discloses the limitations substantially similar to those in claims 1-2, 4, and 6, respectively. Claims 15-16, 18, and 20 are similarly rejected.
Claims 5, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie, Zhuo, Klaedtke, and Zhu and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2022/0116627, filed 28 June 2021, hereafter Liu).
As per dependent claim 5, Xie, Zhuo, Klaedtke, and Zhu disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Zhu discloses after selecting the first element from the first set of elements and before selecting the second element from the second set of elements, performing processing (Figure 3A; paragraphs 0058-0061). Additionally, Zhu discloses storing an element (Figure 3A; paragraphs 0058-0061). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Zhu with Xie-Klaedtke, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for lower overhead when performing matrix multiplication (Zhu: paragraph 0059).
Finally, Liu discloses modifying the first element to a defined value (paragraph 0076: Here, the maximum value are set to a predefined value (e.g., 1)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Liu with Xi-Klaedtke-Zhu, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for identifying a maximum value with the window by setting it to a predefined maximum. This would have allowed for harmonizing the maximums across all windows to improve identification of maximums.
With respect to claims 12 and 16, the applicant discloses the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 5. Claims 12 and 16 are similarly rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Xie, Zhuo, Klaedtke, and Zhu.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mateev (US 12530573): Discloses a sliding window moving across rows with a stride of the group size to perform sparsification of data (column 7, lines 44-56)
Brand (US 6459808): Discloses sparsifying vectors using an iterative process (column 6, lines 51-63)
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