DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the application filed 07/20/2022.
Claims 1-20 are presenting for examination. Claims 1, 14, and 17 are independent Claims.
Drawings
3. The drawings filed 07/20/2022 are accepted for examination purposes.
Specification
4. The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step1: determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If YES, proceed to Step 2A, broken into two prongs.
Step 2A, Prong 1: determine whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If YES, the analysis proceeds to the second prong.
Step 2A, Prong 2: determine whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If NOT, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B).
Step 2B: If any element or combination of elements in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Claims 1-13:
Step 1 Analysis
Claims 1-13 are directed to a method and therefore fall into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2 Analysis
Independent Claim 1 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea:
“determine performances of multiple configurations of a pipeline” and “a performance of a configuration of the multiple configurations is determined based on the target device, indicated by the input, for implementing the configuration” (the limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas).
Independent claim 1 recites the following additional elements, which, considered individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
“receiving an input indicating a target device” (this is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified mere data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d))
The elements “executing, by a processor, instructions stored in memory” and “the pipeline includes a signal processing component and a machine learning component, wherein a configuration of the multiple configurations varies one or more parameters for configuring at least one of the signal processing component or the machine learning component” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 2, the limitation “a performance of a configuration of the multiple configurations is determined by calculating at least one of a latency, a memory usage, an energy usage, or an accuracy associated with the configuration when implemented on the target device” encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3, the limitation “a performance of a configuration of the multiple configurations is determined by simulating the target device implementing the configuration” encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4, the limitations “a performance of a configuration of the multiple configurations is determined by applying a benchmark to estimate the performance when the target device implements the configuration” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 5, the limitation “predict the performance of a configuration of the multiple configurations” encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The additional elements “using at least one of a machine learning model or a heuristic algorithm” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the claim does not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 6, the limitation “selecting a software toolchain for the target device” encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The additional elements “using the software toolchain to generate firmware for implementing a configuration of the multiple configurations on the target device” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the claim does not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 7, the additional element “the target device is a microcontroller” is recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the claim does not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 8, the limitation “receiving an input for selecting the target device from a library of multiple target devices” is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified mere data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 9, the limitation “determining the one or more parameters for a configuration of the multiple configurations based on the input data” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The limitation “receiving input data” is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified mere data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 10, the limitations “the one or more parameters: select a signal processing algorithm for configuring the signal processing component; and select a learning algorithm for configuring the machine learning component” encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 11, the limitation “the performances of the multiple configurations are compared to an application constraint comprising at least one of: a latency associated with the pipeline; a memory usage associated with the pipeline; or an energy usage associated with the pipeline” encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 12, the additional elements “configuring a graphical user interface (GUI) for display at an output interface, wherein the GUI indicates the performances of the multiple configurations” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the claim does not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 13, the limitation “ranking configurations of the multiple configurations based on the performances of the multiple configurations” encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The additional elements “configuring a GUI for display at an output interface, wherein the GUI indicates the ranking” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the claim does not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 14-16:
Step 1 Analysis
Claims 14-16 are directed to an apparatus and therefore fall into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2 Analysis
Independent Claim 14 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea:
“determine performances of multiple configurations of a pipeline” and “performance of a configuration of the multiple configurations is determined based on the target device, indicated by the input, for implementing the configuration” (the limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas).
Independent claim 14 recites the following additional elements, which, considered individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
“receiving an input indicating a target device” (this is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified mere data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d))
The elements “a memory; and a processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory” and “the pipeline includes a signal processing component and a machine learning component, wherein a configuration of the multiple configurations varies one or more parameters for configuring at least one of the signal processing component or the machine learning component” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, the claims correspond to claims 3 and 4. Therefore, the claims are rejected for the same reason.
Regarding Claims 17-20:
Step 1 Analysis
Claims 17-20 are directed to a method and therefore fall into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2 Analysis
Independent Claim 17 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea:
“determine a first performance of a first configuration of a pipeline and a second performance of a second configuration of the pipeline” and “the first performance and the second performance are determined based on the microcontroller indicated by the input” (the limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas).
Independent claim 17 recites the following additional elements, which, considered individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
“receiving an input indicating a microcontroller” (this is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified mere data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d))
The elements “executing, by a processor, instructions stored in memory” and “the pipeline includes one or more signal processing components and one or more machine learning components, wherein the first configuration uses a first parameter for configuring the pipeline and the second configuration uses a second parameter for configuring the pipeline that is different from the first parameter” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 18, the limitation “the first performance is determined by simulating the microcontroller implementing the first configuration, and wherein the second performance is determined by simulating the microcontroller implementing the second configuration” encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 19 the limitations “the first performance is determined by applying a benchmark to estimate the first performance when the microcontroller implements the first configuration, and wherein the second performance is determined by applying the benchmark to estimate the second performance when the microcontroller implements the second configuration” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 20, the limitation “predict the first performance and the second performance” encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The additional elements “using at least one of a machine learning model or a heuristic algorithm” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the claim does not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nasr-Azadani et al. (US 20200387836).
As to Claim 1:
Nasr-Azadani teaches a method, comprising:
receiving an input indicating a target device ([0038-0039], [0044, and [0075]); and
executing, by a processor, instructions stored in memory ([0075-0076]) to determine performances of multiple configurations of a pipeline, wherein the pipeline includes a signal processing component and a machine learning component, wherein a configuration of the multiple configurations varies one or more parameters for configuring at least one of the signal processing component or the machine learning component, and wherein a performance of a configuration of the multiple configurations is determined based on the target device, indicated by the input, for implementing the configuration ([0023-0024], [0072], and [0078]).
As to Claim 2:
Nasr-Azadani teaches a performance of a configuration of the multiple configurations is determined by calculating at least one of a latency, a memory usage, an energy usage, or an accuracy associated with the configuration when implemented on the target device ([0028] and [0035]).
As to Claim 3:
Nasr-Azadani teaches a performance of a configuration of the multiple configurations is determined by simulating the target device implementing the configuration ([0072]).
As to Claim 4:
Nasr-Azadani teaches a performance of a configuration of the multiple configurations is determined by applying a benchmark to estimate the performance when the target device implements the configuration ([0056-0057]).
As to Claim 5:
Nasr-Azadani teaches using at least one of a machine learning model or a heuristic algorithm to predict the performance of a configuration of the multiple configurations ([0023-0024] and [0038]).
As to Claim 6:
Nasr-Azadani teaches selecting a software toolchain for the target device; and using the software toolchain to generate firmware for implementing a configuration of the multiple configurations on the target device ([0072] and [0078]).
As to Claim 7:
Nasr-Azadani teaches the target device is a microcontroller ([0075]).
As to Claim 8:
Nasr-Azadani teaches receiving an input for selecting the target device from a library of multiple target devices ([0061-0062]).
As to Claim 9:
Nasr-Azadani teaches receiving input data; and determining the one or more parameters for a configuration of the multiple configurations based on the input data ([0021-0023] and [0076]).
As to Claim 10:
Nasr-Azadani teaches the one or more parameters: select a signal processing algorithm for configuring the signal processing component; and select a learning algorithm for configuring the machine learning component ([0021-0023] and [0029-0030]).
As to Claim 11:
Nasr-Azadani teaches the performances of the multiple configurations are compared to an application constraint comprising at least one of: a latency associated with the pipeline; a memory usage associated with the pipeline; or an energy usage associated with the pipeline ([0028] and [0035]).
As to Claim 12:
Nasr-Azadani teaches configuring a graphical user interface (GUI) for display at an output interface, wherein the GUI indicates the performances of the multiple configurations ([0072-0073]).
As to Claim 13:
Nasr-Azadani teaches ranking configurations of the multiple configurations based on the performances of the multiple configurations; and configuring a GUI for display at an output interface, wherein the GUI indicates the ranking ([0043] and [0072-0073]).
As to Claims 14-16:
Refer to the discussion of Claims 1, 3, and 4 above, respectively, for rejection. Claims 14-16 are the same as Claims 1, 3, and 4, except Claims 14-16 are apparatus Claims and claims 1, 3, and 4 are method Claims.
As to Claim 17:
Nasr-Azadani teaches a method, comprising:
receiving an input indicating a microcontroller ([0038-0039], [0044, and [0075]); and
executing, by a processor, instructions stored in memory ([0075-0076]) to determine a first performance of a first configuration of a pipeline and a second performance of a second configuration of the pipeline, wherein the pipeline includes one or more signal processing components and one or more machine learning components, wherein the first configuration uses a first parameter for configuring the pipeline and the second configuration uses a second parameter for configuring the pipeline that is different from the first parameter, and wherein the first performance and the second performance are determined based on the microcontroller indicated by the input ([0023-0024], [0072-0073], and [0078]).
As to Claim 18:
Nasr-Azadani teaches the first performance is determined by simulating the microcontroller implementing the first configuration, and wherein the second performance is determined by simulating the microcontroller implementing the second configuration ([0072]).
As to Claim 19:
Nasr-Azadani teaches the first performance is determined by applying a benchmark to estimate the first performance when the microcontroller implements the first configuration, and wherein the second performance is determined by applying the benchmark to estimate the second performance when the microcontroller implements the second configuration ([0056-0057]).
As to Claim 20:
Nasr-Azadani teaches using at least one of a machine learning model or a heuristic algorithm to predict the first performance and the second performance ([0023-0024] and [0038]).
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record, listed on PTO 892 provided to Applicant is considered to have relevancy to the claimed invention. Applicant should review each identified reference carefully before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the prior art.
Contact information
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MAIKHANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-4093. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:00 am – 5:30 pm). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TAMARA KYLE can be reached at (571)272-4241.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MAIKHANH NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144