Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are listed in the table below with regard to claim 1.
Limitation
Relevant Specification Details
a transformation unit
“replacing the element corresponding to the 0th of the H dimension, the 0th of the W dimension, and the kth of the C dimension in the first 3 dimensional data as the element corresponding to the 0th of the H dimension, the kth of the W dimension, and the 0th of the C dimension.” [0039]
a channel dimension element number increase unit
“performing a convolution layer process with a filter size of 1 x 1 with a common value of N weights” [0043]
a transposition unit
“the operation of shifting the position of elements in multidimensional data by changing the order of coordinates in multidimension coordinates when the elements in multidimensional data are expressed in multidimension coordinates” [0057]
a generation unit
“defining the H pieces of 3 dimensional data as the 0th to H-1st data in the H dimension, respectively” [0063]
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For the Alice analysis:
Regarding Step 1, claims 1-6 all fall within a statutory category. Claims 1-4 are directed to a machine, and claims 5-6 are directed to a process.
Regarding claim 1, for Step 2A, Prong One, the claim recites means-plus-function language, where the corresponding support in the Specification points to “replacing the element corresponding to the 0th of the H dimension, the 0th of the W dimension, and the kth of the C dimension in the first 3 dimensional data as the element corresponding to the 0th of the H dimension, the kth of the W dimension, and the 0th of the C dimension” and “[t]he transposition is the operation of shifting the position of elements in multidimensional data by changing the order of coordinates in multidimension coordinates when the elements in multidimensional data are expressed in multidimension coordinates”, which are the mathematical concept of transposition; “performing a convolution layer process with a filter size of 1 x 1 with a common value of N weights”, which is the mathematical concept of convolution; and “defining the H pieces of 3 dimensional data as the 0th to H-1st data in the H dimension”, which is the mathematical concept of partitioning or blocking.
For Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim recites the additional element of the units being “implemented by a processor”. The processor is merely a generic computer component to apply the mathematical calculations disclosed in claim 1 to a computer. The specification agrees with this assertion: “[t]he transformation unit 2, the channel dimension element number increase unit 3, the transposition unit 4, and the generation unit 5 are realized, for example, by a CPU (Central Processing Unit) of a computer operating according to a multidimensional data generation program” [0072].
For Step 2B, these additional elements, even when viewed in combination, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. The processor amounts to merely stating “apply it”. Mere instructions to apply do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, for Step 2A, Prong One, the claim merely limits the mathematical concept of claim 1 and both claims further recite “performing the convolution layer process with a filter size of 1 x 1 with a common value 1 of N weights”, which is the mathematical concept of convolution. Claim 3 additionally recites “divid[ing] a value of each element in the multidimensional data by the predetermined value”, which is also a mathematical concept.
For Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B, no additional elements are recited. Even when viewed in combination, none of the limitations integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. The claims are not eligible.
Regarding claim 4, it merely further limits the mathematical concepts in claim 1. Even when viewed in combination, none of the limitations integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claim 5, it is a method claim that corresponds to claim 1, and is not eligible for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 6, it is a computer-readable media claim that corresponds to claim 1, and is not eligible for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including “a transformation unit, implemented by a processor, and that transforms for transforming first multidimensional data in which the number of elements of dimension of channel is C and the number of elements of each dimension other than the dimension of channel is 1 into second multidimensional data in which the number of elements of one dimension out of dimensions other than the dimension of channel is C and the number of elements of each dimension other than the one dimension is 1; a channel dimension element number increase unit, implemented by the processor, and that generates third multidimensional data in which the number of elements of the dimension of channel is increased from 1 to N, by performing a convolution layer process with a filter size of 1 x 1 with a common value of N weights on the second multidimensional data, when product of predetermined number of elements for each dimension other than the dimension of channel is N; a transposition unit, implemented by the processor, and that performs predetermined transposition on the third multidimensional data so that the number of elements of the dimension of channel becomes C; and a generation unit, implemented by the processor, and that generates multidimensional data in which the number of elements of the dimension of channel is C and the number of elements of each dimension other than the dimension of channel is predetermined number of elements, based on the multidimensional data after the predetermined transposition”.
Wang et al., “ECA-Net: Efficient Channel Attention for Deep Convolutional Neural Networks”, discloses an algorithm that performs a squeeze, transpose, convolution, transpose back and unsqueeze algorithm (Figure 3), but does not go into detail about how any of those steps are done beyond specifying the use of the Python library PyTorch, which does not implement the steps as described in the limitation table above.
Rickmann et al., “Recalibrating 3D ConvNets With Project & Excite”, discloses a scale step (Section II D, ¶ 1), but does not teach or suggest the scaling being done via a convolution step.
Roy et al., “Concurrent Spatial and Channel ‘Squeeze & Excitation’ in Fully Convolutional Networks”, discloses improving performance by running several squeeze-and-excitation (SE) blocks in parallel (Figure 1d), but does not teach or suggest the scaling step being done via convolution.
Gural et al. (US 11,580,191) discloses using a 1x1 convolution process in the field of neural networks (Figures 5A and 5B), but does not teach or suggest their being used to expand a tensor.
Ross et al. (US 2020/0160226) discloses using convolution as a way of transforming tensors (Figure 1), but the convolution is not 1x1 and does not teach or suggest using convolution to expand a tensor into a larger tensor.
Claims 2-4 would be allowable by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, it is a method claim that corresponds to claim 1, and would be allowable for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 6, it is a computer-readable media claim that corresponds to claim 1, and would be allowable for the same reasons.
Discussion of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shibata et al. (US 2023/0196077) discloses the squeeze-and-excitation process disclosed in the Specification, but the scaling process is done via copying the tensor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew Strapp whose telephone number is (571)272-9343. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM-4:00 PM.
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, Andrew Caldwell can be reached at (571)272-3702. 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.
/M.S./
Matthew StrappExaminer, Art Unit 2182 (571)272-9343
/ANDREW CALDWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182
Prosecution Insights