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 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- 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding claim 1 : Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1: Claim 1 recites “A method of processing data according to a neural network process using a hardware accelerator comprising fixed-function circuitry configured to perform a set of available elementary neural network operations….” which is a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter . Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 recites the steps: “ A method of processing data according to a neural network process using a hardware accelerator comprising fixed-function circuitry configured to perform a set of available elementary neural network operation s ….”: This involves a human performing a set of elementary neural network operations; therefore, this is a mental process. “ mapping the pooling function to a set of elementary neural network operations, wherein the set of elementary neural network operations comprises only elementary neural network operations from the set of available elementary neural network operations ”: This involves a human mapping a pooling function to a set of neural network operations. Thus, this is a mental process. “ wherein each of the set of elementary neural network operations is selected from a list consisting of: an element-wise subtraction operation, an element-wise addition operation, an element-wise multiplication operation, an element-wise maximum operation, an element-wise minimum operation, a max pooling operation or min pooling operation, a magnitude operation, one or more lookups operations using one or more look-up tables, a convolution operation, and a deconvolution operation ”: This involves a human performing an operation from a list in step (I). Therefore, this is a mental process. Claim 1 therefore recites abstract ideas. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 1 discloses the additional elements: “ receiving a definition of a neural network process to be performed on the data, the neural network process comprising a neural network with an associated pooling function, wherein the pooling function outputs a maximum or minimum value of data input to the pooling function and a one-hot vector identifying the index of the maximum or minimum value of the data input to the pooling function ”: This element does not integrate the element into a practical application because the element recites an insignificant extra solution activity of data transmission (MPEP 2106.05(g)). “ processing the data according to the neural network process, using the fixed-function circuitry of the hardware accelerator to perform the neural network with the associated pooling function, wherein the pooling function is performed using the set of elementary neural network operations ”: This element does not integrate the element into a practical application because the element recites generic computing components (neural network and hardware accelerator) to perform the abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.05(f)). “ the data comprises image data and/or audio data ”: This element does not integrate into a practical application because it further defines the input data in the additional element (I) that was received. Hence, the element recites an insignificant extra solution activity of data transmission (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Thus, claim 1 is directed to the abstract ideas. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B: The additional elements in claim 1 do not provide more than the abstract ideas themselves taken alone and in combination because: “ receiving a definition of a neural network process to be performed on the data, the neural network process comprising a neural network with an associated pooling function, wherein the pooling function outputs a maximum or minimum value of data input to the pooling function and a one-hot vector identifying the index of the maximum or minimum value of the data input to the pooling function ”: This element mentions a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of “receiving or transmitting data over a network” (MPEP 2106.05(d)(I), Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321; 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016) [utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information]) “ processing the data according to the neural network process, using the fixed-function circuitry of the hardware accelerator to perform the neural network with the associated pooling function, wherein the pooling function is performed using the set of elementary neural network operations ”: This element recites generic computing components (neural network and hardware accelerator) to perform the abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.05(f)). “ the data comprises image data and/or audio data ”: This element does not integrate into a practical application because it further defines the input data in the additional element (I) that was received. Hence, the element mentions a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of “receiving or transmitting data over a network” (MPEP 2106.05(d)(I), Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321; 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016) [utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information]) . Since there is no nexus between additional elements that could cause the combination to provide an inventive concept, claim 1 is subject-matter ineligible . Regarding claim 2 : Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1: Claim 2 is a process as in claim 1 Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1: In addition to the mental concepts in claim 1, claim 2 recites: “ the data input to the pooling function is an input tensor, and the set of elementary neural network operations implements, to perform the pooling function ”: This involves a human performing the pooling function using the elementary neural network operations from claim 1. Therefore, this is a mental process. “ a maximum or minimum pooling operation, applied to the input tensor, that identifies the maximum or minimum value contained in the input tensor ”: This involves a human implementing a maximum/minimum pooling operation to an input tensor by identifying the maximum/minimum value in the input tensor. Hence, this is a mental process. Thus claim 2 recites abstract ideas. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2: In addition to the additional elements in claim 1, claim 2 recites: “ the data input to the pooling function is an input tensor , and the set of elementary neural network operations implements, to perform the pooling function ”: This element does not integrate the element into a practical application because the element recites an insignificant extra solution activity of data transmission (MPEP 2106.05(g)). “ a binary argmax or binary argmin function that outputs a one-hot vector representing an argmax or argmin of the input tensor ”: This element does not integrate the element into a practical application because the element recites an insignificant extra solution activity of data transmission (MPEP 2106.05(g)) Claim 2 therefore is directed to the abstract ideas. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B: The additional elements in claim 2 do not provide more than the abstract ideas themselves taken alone and in combination because: “ the data input to the pooling function is an input tensor , and the set of elementary neural network operations implements, to perform the pooling function ”: This element mentions a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of “receiving or transmitting data over a network” (MPEP 2106.05(d)(I), Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321; 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016) [utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information]) . “ a binary argmax or binary argmin function that outputs a one-hot vector representing an argmax or argmin of the input tensor ”: This element mentions a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of “receiving or transmitting data over a network” (MPEP 2106.05(d)(I), Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321; 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016) [utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information]) . Since there is no nexus between additional elements that could cause the combination to provide an inventive concept, claim 2 is subject-matter ineligible . Regarding claim 3 : Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1: Claim 3 is a process as in claim 2. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1: In addition to the mental concepts in claim 2, claim 3 recites: “ an argmax or argmin operation, applied to the input tensor, that identifies an index of a maximum value or minimum value respectively of the input tensor ”: This involves a human applying an argmax/ argmin operation to an input tensor by identifying the index of the maximum/minimum value of the input tensor, therefore this is a mental process. “ a subtraction operation, applied to each element of the first intermediate vector, that subtracts the identified index of the input tensor from the said element of the first intermediate vector to produce a second intermediate vector ”: This involves a human applying a subtraction operation to each element of an immediate vector by subtracting the index from step (I) with each element of the immediate vector in order to produce a second immediate vector, thus this is a mental process. “ a zero-identification operation, applied to the second intermediate vector, that replaces any zero values in the second intermediate vector with a first binary value and any non-zero values in the second intermediate vector with a second, different binary value, to thereby produce the one-hot vector ”: This involves a human replacing any zero values from the vector in step (II) with a binary value and any non-zero value with another binary value to perform a zero-identification operation. Thus, this is a mental process. Claim 3 , hence recites abstract ideas. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2: In addition to the additional elements in claim 2, claim 3 recites: “ a first intermediate vector obtaining operation that obtains a first intermediate vector having a same number of entries as the input tensor, each entry of the first intermediate vector containing an index value of a different entry of the input tensor ”: This element does not integrate into a practical application because the element recites an insignificant extra solution activity of data transmission (MPEP 2106.05(g)) Claim 3 therefore is directed to the abstract ideas. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B: The additional element in claim 3 does not provide more than the abstract ideas themselves taken alone and in combination because: “ a first intermediate vector obtaining operation that obtains a first intermediate vector having a same number of entries as the input tensor, each entry of the first intermediate vector containing an index value of a different entry of the input tensor ”: This element mentions a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of “receiving or transmitting data over a network” (MPEP 2106.05(d)(I), Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321; 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016) [utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information]) . Since there is no nexus between additional elements that could cause the combination to provide an inventive concept, claim 3 is subject-matter ineligible . Regarding claim 4 : Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1: Claim 4 recites “A method of processing data according to a neural network process using a hardware accelerator comprising fixed-function circuitry configured to perform a set of available elementary neural network operations….” which is a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 4 recites the steps: “ A method of processing data according to a neural network process using a hardware accelerator comprising fixed-function circuitry configured to perform a set of available elementary neural network operation s ….”: This involves a human performing a set of elementary neural network operations; therefore, this is a mental process. “ receiving a definition of a neural network process to be performed on the data, the neural network process comprising a neural network with an associated unpooling or backward pooling function, wherein the unpooling or backward pooling function is configured to map an input value to an original position in a tensor using a one-hot vector that represents an argmax or argmin of a previous pooling function ”: This involves a human mapping an input value to a position in a tensor using a one-hot vector from a pooling function, thus this is a mental process. “ mapping the un pooling or backward pooling function to a set of elementary neural network operations, wherein the set of elementary neural network operations comprises only elementary neural network operations from the set of available elementary neural network operations ”: This involves a human mapping a pooling function to a set of neural network operations. Thus, this is a mental process. “ wherein each of the set of elementary neural network operations is selected from a list consisting of: an element-wise subtraction operation, an element-wise addition operation, an element-wise multiplication operation, an element-wise maximum operation, an element-wise minimum operation, a max pooling operation or min pooling operation, a magnitude operation, one or more lookups operations using one or more look-up tables, a convolution operation, and a deconvolution operation ”: This involves a human performing an operation from a list in step (I). Therefore, this is a mental process. Claim 4 therefore recites abstract ideas. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 4 discloses the additional elements: “ receiving a definition of a neural network process to be performed on the data, the neural network process comprising a neural network with an associated un pooling or backward pooling function, wherein the unpooling or backward pooling function is configured to map an input value to an original position in a tensor using a one-hot vector that represents an argmax or argmin of a previous pooling function ”: This element does not integrate the element into a practical application because the element recites an insignificant extra solution activity of data transmission (MPEP 2106.05(g)). “ processing the data according to the neural network process, using the fixed-function circuitry of the hardware accelerator to perform the neural network with the associated un pooling or backward pooling function, wherein the pooling function is performed using the set of elementary neural network operations ”: This element does not integrate the element into a practical application because the element recites generic computing components (neural network and hardware accelerator) to perform the abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.05(f)). “ the data comprises image data and/or audio data ”: This element does not integrate into a practical application because it further defines the input data in the additional element (I) that was received. Hence, the element recites an insignificant extra solution activity of data transmission (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Thus, claim 4 is directed to the abstract ideas. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B: The additional elements in claim 4 do not provide more than the abstract ideas themselves taken alone and in combination because: “ receiving a definition of a neural network process to be performed on the data, the neural network process comprising a neural network with an associated un pooling or backward pooling function, wherein the unpooling or backward pooling function is configured to map an input value to an original position in a tensor using a one-hot vector that represents an argmax or argmin of a previous pooling function ”: This element mentions a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of “receiving or transmitting data over a network” (MPEP 2106.05(d)(I), Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321; 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016) [utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information]) “ processing the data according to the neural network process, using the fixed-function circuitry of the hardware accelerator to perform the neural network with the associated un pooling or backward pooling function, wherein the pooling function is performed using the set of elementary neural network operations ”: This element recites generic computing components (neural network and hardware accelerator) to perform the abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.05(f)). “ the data comprises image data and/or audio data ”: This element does not integrate into a practical application because it further defines the input data in the additional element (I) that was received. Hence, the element mentions a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of “receiving or transmitting data over a network” (MPEP 2106.05(d)(I), Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321; 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016) [utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information]) . Since there is no nexus between additional elements that could cause the combination to provide an inventive concept, claim 4 is subject-matter ineligible . Regarding claim 5 : Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1: Claim 5 is a process as in claim 4. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1: In addition to the mental concepts in claim 4, claim 5 discloses: “ a multiplication function configured to multiply each entry in the one-hot vector by the input value to produce a product one-hot vector ”: This involves a human producing a one-hot vector by multiplying each entry with the input value from claim 4. Therefore, this is a mental process. Hence, claim 5 recites abstract ideas. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2: In addition to the additional elements in claim 4, claim 5 mentions: “ a binary argmax/ argmin acquisition function, configured to obtain the one-hot vector representing an argmax or argmin of a previous pooling function ” : This element does not integrate the element into a practical application because the element recites an insignificant extra solution activity of data transmission (MPEP 2106.05(g)) “ a deconvolution function configured to process the product one-hot vector, using a binary constant filter , to generate an output tensor ”: This element does not integrate the element into a practical application because the element recites an insignificant extra solution activity of data transmission (MPEP 2106.05(g)) “ a deconvolution function configured to process the product one-hot vector, using a binary constant filter , to generate an output tensor ”: This element does not integrate the element into a practical application because the element recites a generic computing component (binary constant filter) to perform the abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 5 therefore is directed to the abstract ideas. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B: The additional elements in claim 5 do not provide more than the abstract ideas themselves taken alone and in combination because: “ a binary argmax/ argmin acquisition function, configured to obtain the one-hot vector representing an argmax or argmin of a previous pooling function ” : This element mentions a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of “receiving or transmitting data over a network” (MPEP 2106.05(d)(I), Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321; 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016) [utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information]) “ a deconvolution function configured to process the product one-hot vector, using a binary constant filter , to generate an output tensor ”: This element mentions a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of “receiving or transmitting data over a network” (MPEP 2106.05(d)(I), Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321; 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016) [utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information]) “ a deconvolution function configured to process the product one-hot vector, using a binary constant filter , to generate an output tensor ”: This element does not integrate the element into a practical application because the element recites a generic computing component (binary constant filter) to perform the abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Since there is no nexus between additional elements that could cause the combination to provide an inventive concept, claim 5 is subject-matter ineligible . Regarding claim 6 : Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1: Claim 6 is a process as in claim 5. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2 A P rong 1: In addition to the mental concepts in claim 5, claim 6 mentions: “ the multiplication function is performed using an element-wise multiplication operation . ”: This involves a human using element-wise multiplication as the multiplication function. Thus, this is a mental process. Therefore, claim 6 recites abstract ideas. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 6 recites the same additional elements as claim 5, thus claim 6 is directed to the abstract ideas. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B: Since claim 6 recites the same additional elements as claim 5 and there is no nexus between additional elements that could cause the combination to provide an inventive concept, claim 6 is subject-matter ineligible . Regarding claim 7 : Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1: Claim 7 is a process as in claim 5. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2 A P rong 1: In addition to the mental concepts in claim 5, claim 7 mentions: “ deconvolution function is performed using a deconvolution operation . ”: This involves a human using a deconvolution operation (e.g. blurring, adding noise, etc.) as the deconvolution function. Thus, this is a mental process. Therefore, claim 7 recites abstract ideas. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 7 recites the same additional elements as claim 5, thus claim 7 is directed to the abstract ideas. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B: Since claim 7 recites the same additional elements as claim 5 and there is no nexus between additional elements that could cause the combination to provide an inventive concept, claim 7 is subject-matter ineligible . Regarding claim 8 : Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1: Claim 8 is a process as in claim 5. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2 A P rong 1: Claim 8 recites the same mental concepts as claim 5. Hence, claim 8 recites abstract ideas. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2: In addition to the mental concepts in claim 5, claim 8 recites: “ deconvolution function is a grouped deconvolution function . ”: This element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it further defines the deconvolution function which generates the output in claim 5, thus this element is also an insignificant extra solution activity of data transmission (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claim 8 therefore is directed to the abstract ideas. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B: The additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract ideas themselves, taken alone and in combination because: “ deconvolution function is a grouped deconvolution function . ”: This element further defines the deconvolution function which generates the output in claim 5, thus this element mentions a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of “receiving or transmitting data over a network” (MPEP 2106.05(d)(I), Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321; 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016) [utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information]) Since there is no nexus between additional elements that could cause the combination to provide an inventive concept, claim 8 is subject-matter ineligible . Regarding claim 9 : Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1: Claim 9 recites “A method of processing data according to a neural network process using a hardware accelerator comprising fixed-function circuitry configured to perform a set of available elementary neural network operations….” which is a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 9 recites the steps: “ A method of processing data according to a neural network process using a hardware accelerator comprising fixed-function circuitry configured to perform a set of available elementary neural network operation s ….”: This involves a human performing a set of elementary neural network operations; therefore, this is a mental process. “ mapping the binary argmax or binary argmin function to a set of elementary neural network operations, wherein the set of elementary neural network operations comprises only elementary neural network operations from the set of available elementary neural network operations ”: This involves a human mapping a binary argmax or binary argmin function to a set of neural network operations. Thus, this is a mental process. “ wherein each of the set of elementary neural network operations is selected from a list consisting of: an element-wise subtraction operation, an element-wise addition operation, an element-wise multiplication operation, an element-wise maximum operation, an element-wise minimum operation, a max pooling operation or min pooling operation, a magnitude operation, one or more lookups operations using one or more look-up tables, a convolution operation, and a deconvolution operation ”: This involves a human performing an operation from a list in step (I). Therefore, this is a mental process. Claim 9 therefore recites abstract ideas. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 9 discloses the additional elements: “ receiving a definition of a neural network process to be performed, the neural network process comprising a neural network with an associated binary argmax or binary argmin function ”: This element does not integrate the element into a practical application because the element recites an insignificant extra solution activity of data transmission (MPEP 2106.05(g)). “ processing the data according to the neural network process, using the fixed-function circuitry of the hardware accelerator to perform the neural network with the associated binary argmax or binary argmin function, wherein the binary argmax or binary argmin function is performed using the set of elementary neural network operations ”: This element does not integrate the element into a practical application because the element recites generic computing components (neural network and hardware accelerator) to perform the abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.05(f)). “ the data comprises image data and/or audio data ”: This element does not integrate into a practical application because it further defines the input data in the additional element (I) that was received. Hence, the element recites an insignificant extra solution activity of data transmission (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Thus, claim 9 is directed to the abstract ideas. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B: The additional elements in claim 9 do not provide more than the abstract ideas themselves taken alone and in combination because: “ receiving a definition of a neural network process to be performed, the neural network process comprising a neural network with an associated binary argmax or binary argmin function ”: This element mentions a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of “receiving or transmitting data over a network” (MPEP 2106.05(d)(I), Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321; 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016) [utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information]) “ processing the data according to the neural network process, using the fixed-function circuitry of the hardware accelerator to perform the neural network with the associated binary argmax or binary argmin function, wherein the binary argmax or binary argmin function is performed using the set of elementary neural network operations ”: This element recites generic computing components (neural network and hardware accelerator) to perform the abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.05(f)). “ the data comprises image data and/or audio data ”: This element does not integrate into a practical application because it further defines the input data in the additional element (I) that was received. Hence, the element mentions a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of “receiving or transmitting data over a network” (MPEP 2106.05(d)(I), Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321; 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016) [utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information]) . Since there is no nexus between additional elements that could cause the combination to provide an inventive concept, claim 9 is subject-matter ineligible . Regarding claim 10 : Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1: Claim 10 is a process as in claim 9. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1: In addition to the mental concepts in claim 9, claim 10 recites: “ an argmax or argmin operation, applied to a first input tensor, that identifies an index of a maximum value or minimum value respectively of the first input tensor ”: This involves a human applying an argmax/ argmin operation to an input tensor by identifying the index of the maximum/minimum value of the input tensor, therefore this is a mental process. “ a subtraction operation, applied to each element of the first intermediate vector, that subtracts the identified index of the first input tensor from the said element of the first intermediate vector to produce a second intermediate vector ”: This involves a human applying a subtraction operation to each element of an immediate vector by subtracting the index from step (I) with each element of the immediate vector in order to produce a second immediate vector, thus this is a mental process. “ a zero-identification operation, applied to the second intermediate vector, that replaces any zero values in the second intermediate vector with a first binary value and any non-zero values in the second intermediate vector with a second, different binary value, to thereby produce the one-hot vector ”: This involves a human replacing any zero values from the vector in step (II) with a binary value and any non-zero value with another binary value to perform a zero-identification operation. Thus, this is a mental process. Claim 10 hence recites abstract ideas. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2: In addition to the additional elements in claim 9 , claim 10 recites: “ a vector obtaining operation that obtains a first intermediate vector having a same number of entries as the first input tensor, each entry of the first intermediate vector containing an index value of a different entry of the input tensor ”: This element does not integrate into a practical application because the element recites an insignificant extra solution activity of data transmission (MPEP 2106.05(g)) Claim 10 therefore is directed to the abstract ideas. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B: The additional element in claim 10 does not provide more than the abstract ideas themselves taken alone and in combination because: “ a vector obtaining operation that obtains a first intermediate vector having a same number of entries as the first input tensor, each entry of the first intermediate vector containing an index value of a different entry of the input tensor ”: This element mentions a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of “receiving or transmitting data over a network” (MPEP 2106.05(d)(I), Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321; 120 USPQ2d 1353, 136 9 (Fed. Cir. 2016) [utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information]) . Since there is no nexus between additional elements that could cause the combination to provide an inventive concept, claim 10 is subject-matter ineligible . Regarding claim 11 : Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1: Claim 11 is a process as in claim 10. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 11 recites the same mental concepts as claim 10, thus claim 11 recites abstract ideas. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2: In addition to the additional elements in claim 10, claim 11 mentions: “ the first intermediate vector is stored in a look-up table ”: This element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the element mentions an insignificant extra solution activity of data storage (MPEP 2106.05 (g)). Thus, claim 11 is directed to the abstract ideas. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B: The additional elements in claim 11 does not provide significantly more than the abstract ideas themselves taken alone and in combination because: “ the first intermediate vector is stored in a look-up table ”: This element mentions a well-understood, routine and conventional activity of “storing and retrieving information in memory” (MPEP 2106.05(d)(IV) “Storing and retrieving information in memory”, 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) Since there is no nexus between additional elements that could cause the combination to provide an inventive concept, claim 1 1 is subject-matter ineligible . Regarding claim 12 : Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1: Claim 12 is a process as in claim 10. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1: In addition to the mental concepts in claim 10, claim 12 mentions: “ a binary maximum/minimum operation, applied to the first input tensor, to produce a binary tensor of the same spatial size as the first input tensor, wherein each element in the binary tensor: corresponds to a different element of the first input tensor, and contains a binary value indicating whether or not the corresponding element of the first input tensor has a value equal to the maximum/minimum value contained in the first input tensor ”: This involves a human performing a binary maximum/minimum operation to the first input tensor to produce a binary tensor where each element corresponds to a binary value and is different from the elements in the first tensor. Thus, this is a mental process. “ an integer index operation, applied to the binary tensor, that identifies one or more indexes of the binary tensor, the identified one or more indexes being indexes of the one or more elements of the binary tensor that have a binary value that indicates the corresponding element of the first input tensor has a value equal to the maximum/minimum value contained in the first input tensor ”: This involves a human performing an integer index operation on the tensor from step (I) by identifying one or more indexes that corresponds to the maximum/minimum value contained in the first input tensor. Therefore, this is a mental process. “ a tie elimination operation, applied to the identified indexes, that selects a single one of the one or more identified indexes to provide the output of the argmax or argmin function ”: This involves a human selecting an index from step (II) as the output, thus this is a mental process. Therefore, claim 12 recites abstract ideas. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 12 recites the same additional elements as claim 10, thus claim 12 is directed to the abstract ideas. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B: Since claim 12 recites the same additional elements as claim 10 and there is no nexus between additional elements that could cause the combination to provide an inventive concept, claim 12 is subject-matter ineligible. Regarding claim 13 : Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1: Claim 13 is a process as in claim 1. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1: Since claim 13 recites the same mental process as claim 1, claim 13 recites abstract ideas. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2: In addition to the additional element in claim 1, claim 13 mentions: “ A non-transitory computer-readable medium or data carrier having stored thereon computer readable code configured to cause the method of claim 1 to be performed when the code is run ”: This element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the element recites a generic computing component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Hence, claim 13 is directed to the abstract ideas. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B: The additional elements in claim 13 does not provide more than the abstract ideas themselves taken alone and in combination because: “ A non-transitory computer-readable medium or data carrier having stored thereon computer readable code configured to cause the method of claim 1 to be performed when the code is run ”: This element recites a generic computing component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Since there is no nexus between additional elements that could cause the combination to provide an inventive concept, claim 1 3 is subject-matter ineligible . Regarding claim 14 : Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 4: Claim 14 is a process as in claim 4. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 4: Since claim 14 recites the same mental process as claim 4, claim 14 recites abstract ideas. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2: In addition to the additional element in claim 4, claim 14 mentions: “ A non-transitory computer-readable medium or data carrier having stored thereon computer readable code configured to cause the method of claim 4 to be performed when the code is run ”: This element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the element recites a generic computing component (MPEP 2406.05(f)). Hence, claim 14 is directed to the abstract ideas. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B: The additional elements in claim 14 does not provide more than the abstract ideas themselves taken alone and in combination because: “ A non-transitory computer-readable medium or data carrier having stored thereon computer readable code configured to cause the method of claim 4 to be performed when the code is run ”: This element recites a generic computing component (MPEP 2406.05(f)). Since there is no nexus between additional elements that could cause the combination to provide an inventive concept, claim 14 is subject-matter ineligible . Regarding claim 15 : Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 9: Claim 15 is a process as in claim 9. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 9: Since claim 15 recites the same mental process as claim 9, claim 15 recites abstract ideas. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2: In addition to the additional element in claim 9, claim 15 mentions: “ A non-transitory computer-readable medium or data carrier having stored thereon computer readable code configured to cause the method of claim 9 to be performed when the code is run ”: This element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the element recites a generic computing component (MPEP 2906.05(f)). Hence, claim 15 is directed to the abstract ideas. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B: The additional elements in claim 15 does not provide more than the abstract ideas themselves taken alone and in combination because: “ A non-transitory computer-readable medium or data carrier having stored thereon computer readable code configured to cause the method of claim 9 to be performed when the code is run ”: This element recites a generic computing component (MPEP 2906.05(f)). Since there is no nexus between additional elements that could cause the combination to provide an inventive concept, claim 15 is subject-matter ineligible . Regarding claim 16 : Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1: Claim 16 is a process as in claim 1. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1: Since claim 16 recites the same mental process as claim 1, claim 16 recites abstract ideas. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2: In addition to the additional element s in claim 1, claim 16 mentions: “ a hardware accelerator comprising fixed-function circuitry configured to perform a set of available elementary neural network operation ”: This element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the element recites a generic computing component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). “ a controller configured to perform the method as set forth in claim 1 ”: This element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the element recites a generic computing component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Hence, claim 16 is directed to the abstract ideas. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B: The additional elements in claim 16 does not provide more than the abstract ideas themselves taken alone and in combination because: “ a hardware accelerator comprising fixed-function circuitry configured to perform a set of available elementary neural network operation ”: This element recites a generic computing component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). “ a controller configured to perform the method as set forth in claim 1 ”: This recites a generic computing component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Since there is no nexus between additional elements that could cause the combination to provide an inventive concept, claim 16 is subject-matter ineligible . Regarding claim 17 : Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 4: Claim 17 is a process as in claim 4. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 4: Since claim 17 recites the same mental process as claim 4, claim 17 recites abstract ideas. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2: In addition to the additional elements in claim 4, claim 17 mentions: “ a hardware accelerator comprising fixed-function circuitry configured to perform a set of available elementary neural network operation ”: This element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the element recites a generic computing component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). “ a controller configured to perform the method as set forth in claim 4 ”: This element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the element recites a generic computing component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Hence, claim 17 is directed to the abstract ideas. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B: The additional elements in claim 17 does not provide more than the abstract ideas themselves taken alone and in combination because: “ a hardware accelerator comprising fixed-function circuitry configured to perform a set of available elementary neural network operation ”: This element recites a generic computing component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). “ a controller configured to perform the method as set forth in claim 4 ”: This recites a generic computing component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Since there is no nexus between additional elements that could cause the combination to provide an inventive concept, claim 17 is subject-matter ineligible . Regarding claim 18: Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 9: Claim 18 is a process as in claim 9. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 9: Since claim 18 recites the same mental process as claim 9, claim 18 recites abstract ideas. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2: In addition to the additional elements in claim 9, claim 18 mentions: “ a hardware accelerator comprising fixed-function circuitry configured to perform a set of available elementary neural network operation ”: This element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the element recites a generic computing component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). “ a controller configured to perform the method as set forth in claim 9 ”: This element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the element recites a generic computing component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Hence, claim 18 is directed to the abstract ideas. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B: The additional elements in claim 18 does not provide more than the abstract ideas themselves taken alone and in combination because: “ a hardware accelerator comprising fixed-function circuitry configured to perform a set of available elementary neural network operation ”: This element recites a generic computing component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). “ a controller configured to perform the method as set forth in claim 9 ”: This recites a generic computing component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Since there is no nexus between additional elements that could cause the combination to provide an inventive concept, claim 18 is subject-matter ineligible . Regarding claim 19 : Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1: Claim 19 is a process as in claim 14. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 19 contains the same mental concepts as claim 14, thus claim 19 recites abstract ideas Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2: In addition to the additional elements in claim 14, claim 19 discloses: “ an activation unit, comprising an LUT ”: This element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the element recites a generic computing component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). “ a local response normalisation unit, configured to perform a local response normalisation ”: This element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the element recites a generic computing component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). “ an element-wise operations unit, configured to apply a selected operation to every pair of respective elements of two tensor of identical size ”: This element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the element recites a generic computing component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). “ one or more convolution engines, configured to perform convolution operations ”: This element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the element recites a generic computing component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). “ a pooling unit, configured to perform pooling operations, including max pooling and/or min pooling ”: This element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the element recites a generic computing component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Hence, claim 1 9 is directed to the abstract ideas. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B: The additional elements in claim 19 does not provide more than the abstract ideas themselves taken alone and in combination because: “ an activation unit, comprising an LUT ”: This element recites a generic computing component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). “ a local response normalisation unit, configured to perform a local response normalisation ”: This element recites a generic computing component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). “ an element-wise operations unit, configured to apply a selected operation to every pair of respective elements of two tensor of identical size ”: This element recites a generic computing component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). “ one or more convolution engines, configured to perform convolution operations ”: This element recites a generic computing component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). “ a pooling unit, configured to perform pooling operations, including max pooling and/or min pooling ”: This element recites a generic computing component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Since there is no nexus between additional elements that could cause the combination to provide an inventive concept, claim 1 9 is subject-matter ineligible . 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