DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This Action is non-final and is in response to the claims filed November 23, 2022. Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claims 1-20 are currently rejected.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 03/13/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/13/2022 and 01/10/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. It has been placed in the application file, and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 1 recognized as prior art in paragraph [24], however Figure 1 is not marked as such. Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended”. If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “calculating a result of calculation” on lines 3-4. It is unclear if this mention of “a result” is the same calculation result as recited on line 7 of claim 11 or another calculation result For examination purposes, the result of lines 3-4 of claim 12 will be construed to be the same calculation result of line 7 of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “an operand matrix” on line 16. It is unclear if this mention of “an operand matrix” is the same operand matrix as recited on lines 9 of claim 16 or some other operand matrix. For examination purposes, the operand matrix of claim 16 line 16 will be construed to be the same operand matrix of line 9 of claim 16.
Because claims 17-19 depend upon claim 16, claims 17-19 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (method).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea. Claim language recites a matrix calculation method for converting an original matrix expression into a transformation matrix and from there evaluate the transformation matrix in order to obtain a result matrix.
Below are the limitations of claim 1 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts:
A matrix calculation method comprising:
converting an original matrix expression into a transformation matrix expression including meta matrices, which are combinations of operations of one of first and second types and operand matrices;
calculating a calculation formula of each element value of a final result matrix by evaluating the transformation matrix expression;
calculating a calculation result matrix of an operation of the second type, which is referenced as an operand matrix of the calculation formula; and
calculating element values of the final result matrix by calculating a result of calculation of an operation of the first type in accordance with the calculation formula, with the use of element values of the calculation result matrix of the operation of the second type.
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”.
At Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements not reciting mathematical equations and mathematical calculations thereof include:
performed by a computing device
included in program code
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality to merely generally link the abstract idea to a computer system, such that the claim merely recites “apply it” in a computer. For these reasons, the additional elements, whether or alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
At Step 2B, the additional elements do not, either alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. As stated in at Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a computer system. For these reasons, claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 2, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (method).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea.
Below are the limitations of claim 2 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts:
The matrix calculation method of claim 1, wherein
the calculating the calculation formula of each element value of the final result matrix by evaluating the transformation matrix expression and the calculating the calculation result matrix of the operation of the second type, which is referenced as the operand matrix of the calculation formula, comprise calculating the calculation formula of each element value of the final result matrix by evaluating the transformation matrix expression at a first point of time, and calculating the calculation result matrix of the operation of the second type, which is referenced as the operand matrix of the calculation formula, at a second point of time, which is later than the first point of time, and
the calculating the element values of the final result matrix by calculating the result of calculation of the operation of the first type in accordance with the calculation formula, with the use of the element values of the calculation result matrix of the operation of the second type, comprises calculating a result of the operation of the first type in accordance with the calculation formula, with the use of the element values of the calculation result matrix of the operation of the second type.
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”.
At Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements not reciting mathematical equations and mathematical calculations thereof include:
element-wise batch calculation
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality to merely generally link the abstract idea to a computer system, such that the claim merely recites “apply it” in a computer. For these reasons, the additional elements, whether or alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
At Step 2B, the additional elements do not, either alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. As stated in at Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a computer system. For these reasons, claim 2 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 2 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 3, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (method).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea.
Below are the limitations of claim 3 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts or mental steps:
A matrix calculation method comprising:
the converting the original matrix expression into the transformation matrix expression (mathematical concepts),
comprises classifying each operation included in the original matrix expression into the first type or the second type by referencing operation-wise type matching data (mental steps).
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”.
The classifying by reference operation-wise type matching data can be reasonably done in the human mind, or otherwise with the aid of pen and paper.
At Step 2A Prong 2, does not recite additional elements beyond those recited in claim 1.
Claim 3 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 4, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (method).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea.
Below are the limitations of claim 4 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts or mental steps:
The matrix calculation method of claim 1, wherein the converting the original matrix expression into the transformation matrix expression (mathematical concepts),
comprises classifying each operation included in the original matrix expression, basically, into the first type and classifying each operation included in the original matrix expression into the second type, only if an exception rule is satisfied (mental steps).
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”.
The classifying each operation only if an exception rule is satisfied can be reasonably done in the human mind, or otherwise with the aid of pen and paper.
At Step 2A Prong 2, does not recite additional elements beyond those recited in claim 1.
Claim 4 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 5, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (method).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea.
Below are the limitations of claim 5 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts or mental steps:
The matrix calculation method of claim 1, wherein the converting the original matrix expression into the transformation matrix expression (mathematical concepts),
comprises classifying each operation included in the original matrix expression into one of the first and second types (mental steps)
by reflecting hardware specification information of the computing device (mental steps).
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”.
The classifying each operation into first and second types can be reasonably done in the human mind, or otherwise with the aid of pen and paper. The reflecting hardware specification information can also be reasonably done in the human mind by collecting information about the hardware specification which informs the math.
At Step 2A Prong 2, there are no additional elements beyond those recited in claim 1.
Claim 5 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 6, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (method).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea.
Below are the limitations of claim 6 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts or mental steps:
The matrix calculation method of claim 5, wherein the classifying each operation included in the original matrix expression into one of the first and second types (mental steps),
comprises classifying a first operation included in the original matrix expression (mental steps)
into the first type if a memory size of the computing device is less than a first size, and classifying the first operation into the second type if the memory size of the computing device is greater than, or the same as the first size (mathematical concepts: mathematical relationships).
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts” or “mental steps”.
The classifying each operation into first and second types can be reasonably done in the human mind, or otherwise with the aid of pen and paper.
At Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements not reciting mathematical equations and mathematical calculations thereof or mental steps include:
a memory size of the computing device
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality to merely generally link the abstract idea to a computer system, such that the claim merely recites “apply it” in a computer. For these reasons, the additional elements, whether or alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
At Step 2B, the additional elements do not, either alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. As stated in at Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a computer system. For these reasons, claim 6 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 7, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (method).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea.
Below are the limitations of claim 7 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts or mental steps:
The matrix calculation method of claim 5, wherein the converting the original matrix expression into the transformation matrix expression (mathematical concepts)
is performed at a time of execution of the program code (mental steps).
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts” or “mental steps”.
Keeping track of the tie so that the the conversion of the original matrix expression into the transformation matrix expression occurs at a time of execution can be carried out mentally with the aid of a stopwatch in order to ensure that the time is maintained under the time of execution.
At Step 2A Prong 2, does not recite additional elements beyond those recited in claim 5.
Claim 7 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 8, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (method).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea.
Below are the limitations of claim 8 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts or mental steps:
The matrix calculation method of claim 1, wherein the converting the original matrix expression into the transformation matrix expression (mathematical concepts),
comprises classifying each operation included in the original matrix expression into one of the first and second types (mental steps).
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”.
The classifying each operation into first and second types can be reasonably done in the human mind, or otherwise with the aid of pen and paper.
At Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements not reciting mathematical equations and mathematical calculations thereof or mental steps include:
in consideration of available hardware resources at a time of matrix expression conversion by the computing device
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality to merely generally link the abstract idea to a computer system, such that the claim merely recites “apply it” in a computer. For these reasons, the additional elements, whether or alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
At Step 2B, the additional elements do not, either alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. As stated in at Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a computer system. For these reasons, claim 8 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 9, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (method).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea.
Below are the limitations of claim 9 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts or mental steps:
The matrix calculation method of claim 1, wherein the converting the original matrix expression into the transformation matrix expression (mathematical concepts),
comprises classifying a first operation into the second type (mental steps)
if a result of calculation of the first operation is an operand of other multiple operations (mathematical concepts: mathematical relationships).
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts” or “mental steps”.
Classifying a first operation into the second type can be reasonably carried out in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
At Step 2A Prong 2, does not recite additional elements beyond those recited in claim 1.
Claim 9 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 10, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (method).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea.
Below are the limitations of claim 10 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts:
The matrix calculation method of claim 9, wherein
the multiple operations include operations of a neighboring matrix expression of the original matrix expression (mathematical concepts),
the neighboring matrix expression is a matrix expression not including a statement for changing element values of a primary matrix between the original matrix expression and the neighboring matrix expression (mathematical concepts).
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”.
At Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements not reciting mathematical equations and mathematical calculations thereof or mental steps include:
the element values of the primary matrix are stored in a memory of the computing device.
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality to merely generally link the abstract idea to a computer system, such that the claim merely recites “apply it” in a computer. For these reasons, the additional elements, whether or alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
At Step 2B, the additional elements do not, either alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. As stated in at Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a computer system. For these reasons, claim 10 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 11, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (method).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea.
Below are the limitations of claim 11 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts or mental steps:
The matrix calculation method of claim 1, wherein the converting the original matrix expression into the transformation matrix expression (mathematical concepts),
comprises performing the evaluating the transformation matrix expression and the calculating the calculation result matrix (mathematical concepts),
while changing a result of classification of the type of each operation included in the transformation matrix expression (mental steps),
and measuring execution time (mental steps),
and determining an optimal type of each operation included in the transformation matrix expression based on the execution time (mental steps).
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts” or “mental steps”.
Changing a result of classification of the type of each operation can be reasonably carried out in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Additionally measuring execution time as well as determining an optimal type of each operation based on the execution time can also be done reasonably in the human mind or otherwise with the aid of a stopwatch and pen and paper.
At Step 2A Prong 2, does not recite additional elements beyond those recited in claim 1.
Claim 11 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 12, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (method).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea.
Below are the limitations of claim 12 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts or mental steps:
The matrix calculation method of claim 1, wherein the calculating the calculation result matrix of the operation of the second type (mathematical concepts),
comprises identifying a calculation flag of the calculation result matrix of the operation of the second type (mental steps),
and calculating a result of calculation of the operation of the second type (mathematical concepts),
if the calculation flag indicates that the calculation of the operation of the second type is yet to be performed (mental steps).
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”.
Identifying a calculation flag for a calculation result matrix of a second type as well as keeping track of operations yet to be performed can be reasonably done in the human mind, or otherwise with the aid of pen and paper.
At Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements not reciting mathematical equations and mathematical calculations thereof or mental steps include:
The calculation flag
storing data of the calculation result matrix of the operation of the second type (insignificant extra-solution activity)
in temporary storage space.
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality to merely generally link the abstract idea to a computer system, such that the claim merely recites “apply it” in a computer. For these reasons, the additional elements, whether or alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
There are insignificant extra-solution activities that must be made of note:
storing data of the calculation result matrix of the operation of the second type (insignificant extra-solution activity)
At Step 2B, the additional elements do not, either alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. As stated in at Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a computer system. For these reasons, claim 12 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In regards to the insignificant extra-solution activity found in this limitation “storing data of the calculation result matrix of the operation of the second type”, this action describes mere data gathering that is recited at a high level of generality. Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: 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. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, this limitation does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 12 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 13, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (method).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea.
Below are the limitations of claim 13 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts or mental steps:
The matrix calculation method of claim 1, wherein the converting the original matrix
expression into the transformation matrix expression,
the calculating the calculation formula of each element value of the final result matrix,
the calculating the calculation result matrix of the operation of the second type,
and the calculating the element values of the final result matrix.
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”.
At Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements not reciting mathematical equations and mathematical calculations thereof or mental steps include:
performed by a matrix calculation framework module included in a program of the program code, at a time when the element values of the final result matrix of the original matrix expression are accessed by an application program formed by the program code.
A matrix calculation framework module
An application program
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality to merely generally link the abstract idea to a computer system, such that the claim merely recites “apply it” in a computer. For these reasons, the additional elements, whether or alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
At Step 2B, the additional elements do not, either alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. As stated in at Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a computer system. For these reasons, claim 13 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 13 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 14, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (method).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea.
Below are the limitations of claim 14 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts or mental steps:
The matrix calculation method of claim 13, wherein the converting the original matrix expression into the transformation matrix expression (mathematical concepts),
the calculating the calculation formula of each element value of the final result matrix (mathematical concepts),
the calculating the calculation result matrix of the operation of the second type (mathematical concepts),
and the calculating the element values of the final result matrix are performed (mathematical concepts).
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”.
At Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements not reciting mathematical equations and mathematical calculations thereof or mental steps include:
when an operator that is overloaded by a matrix calculation framework module included in the program of the program code and assigns the original matrix expression to another matrix is executed or when an evaluation for the original matrix expression, overloaded by the matrix calculation framework module, is called.
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality to merely generally link the abstract idea to a computer system, such that the claim merely recites “apply it” in a computer. For these reasons, the additional elements, whether or alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
At Step 2B, the additional elements do not, either alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. As stated in at Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a computer system. For these reasons, claim 14 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 14 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 15, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (method).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea.
Below are the limitations of claim 15 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts or mental steps:
The matrix calculation method of claim 1, wherein the converting the original matrix expression into the transformation matrix expression (mathematical concepts),
comprises converting the original matrix expression into the transformation matrix expression (mathematical concepts),
which is a set of meta matrices that are combinations of operations of the first type or the second type and operand matrices of the operations (mathematical concepts),
each of the operand matrices is at least one of a primary matrix (mathematical concepts).
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”.
At Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements not reciting mathematical equations and mathematical calculations thereof or mental steps include:
whose element values are stored in a memory of the computing device and a meta matrix whose element values are not stored in the memory of the computing device.
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality to merely generally link the abstract idea to a computer system, such that the claim merely recites “apply it” in a computer. For these reasons, the additional elements, whether or alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
At Step 2B, the additional elements do not, either alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. As stated in at Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a computer system. For these reasons, claim 15 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 15 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 16, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (method).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea. Claim language recites an optimized matrix calculation by classifying operation types of the original matrix expression and from there deriving a transformation matrix and a result matrix through a calculation formula.
Below are the limitations of claim 16 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts or mental steps:
A matrix calculation method performed, comprising:
including an original matrix expression (mathematical concepts); and
performing an optimized matrix calculation if element values of a result matrix of the original matrix expression are accessed (mathematical concepts),
wherein
the performing the optimized matrix calculation, comprises classifying an operation of the original matrix into one of an operation of a first type (mathematical concepts),
which is a matrix operation that can be computed even when element values of an operand matrix are only accessible (mathematical concepts),
and an operation of a second type, which is a matrix operation that can be calculated when all the element values of the operand matrix are accessible (mathematical concepts),
calculating a result matrix of the operation of the second type (mathematical concepts)
and calculating each element value of the result matrix of the original matrix expression by using a calculation formula for each element value of the result matrix of the original matrix expression (mathematical concepts),
the calculation formula includes the operation of the first type and an operand matrix of the operation of the first type (mathematical concepts), and
the operand matrix is at least one of a result matrix of the operation of the second type and a primary matrix (mathematical concepts).
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”.
At Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements not reciting mathematical equations and mathematical calculations thereof or mental steps include:
by a computing device
including a matrix calculation framework module in a program of program code
performing by the matrix calculation framework module
and storing data of the result matrix of the operation of the second type in temporary storage space of the computing device (insignificant extra-solution activity),
whose element values are stored in a memory of the computing device (insignificant extra-solution activity).
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality to merely generally link the abstract idea to a computer system, such that the claim merely recites “apply it” in a computer. For these reasons, the additional elements, whether or alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
There are insignificant extra-solution activities that must be made of note:
and storing data of the result matrix of the operation of the second type in temporary storage space of the computing device,
whose element values are stored in a memory of the computing device.
At Step 2B, the additional elements do not, either alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. As stated in at Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a computer system. For these reasons, claim 16 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In regards to the insignificant extra-solution activity found in this limitation “and storing data of the result matrix of the operation of the second type in temporary storage space of the computing device”, this action describes mere data gathering that is recited at a high level of generality. Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: 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. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, this limitation does not amount to significantly more.
In regards to the insignificant extra-solution activity found in this limitation “whose element values are stored in a memory of the computing device”, this action describes mere data gathering that is recited at a high level of generality. Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: 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. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, this limitation does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 16 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 17, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (method).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea.
Below are the limitations of claim 17 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts or mental steps:
The matrix calculation method of claim 16, wherein the performing the optimized matrix calculation, further comprises performing the optimized matrix calculation when the element values of the result matrix of the original matrix expression.
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”.
At Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements not reciting mathematical equations and mathematical calculations thereof or mental steps include:
included in the program code are accessed during compilation of the program code.
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality to merely generally link the abstract idea to a computer system, such that the claim merely recites “apply it” in a computer. For these reasons, the additional elements, whether or alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
At Step 2B, the additional elements do not, either alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. As stated in at Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a computer system. For these reasons, claim 17 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 17 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 18, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (method).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea.
Below are the limitations of claim 18 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts or mental steps:
The matrix calculation method of claim 16, wherein the performing the optimized matrix calculation, further comprises performing the optimized matrix calculation when the element values of the result matrix of the original matrix expression.
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”.
At Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements not reciting mathematical equations and mathematical calculations thereof or mental steps include:
included in the program code are accessed during execution of the program code.
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality to merely generally link the abstract idea to a computer system, such that the claim merely recites “apply it” in a computer. For these reasons, the additional elements, whether or alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
At Step 2B, the additional elements do not, either alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. As stated in at Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a computer system. For these reasons, claim 18 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 18 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 19, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (method).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea.
Below are the limitations of claim 19 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts or mental steps:
The matrix calculation method of claim 16, wherein the classifying the operation of the original matrix into one of the first and second types (mental steps),
comprises generating a hardware profile by using at least one of hardware specification information and available hardware resource information of the computing device (mental steps), and
classifying the operation of the original matrix into one of the first and second types by using the hardware profile (mental steps).
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts” or “mental steps”.
At Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements not reciting mathematical equations and mathematical calculations thereof or mental steps include:
A hardware profile
Hardware specification
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality to merely generally link the abstract idea to a computer system, such that the claim merely recites “apply it” in a computer. For these reasons, the additional elements, whether or alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
At Step 2B, the additional elements do not, either alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. As stated in at Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a computer system. For these reasons, claim 19 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 19 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 20, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (method).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea. Claim language recites a method for performing an optimized matrix calculation through classifying operation types of an original matrix expression, and deriving a transformation matrix that is evaluated through a calculation formula in order to compute a final result matrix.
Below are the limitations of claim 20 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts or mental steps:
A matrix calculation method, comprising:
including a matrix expression (mathematical concepts); and
performing matrix calculation (mathematical concepts)
wherein
the performing the matrix calculation (mathematical concepts),
comprises classifying an operation of the matrix expression into one of first and second types (mental steps),
and calculating each element value of a result matrix of the matrix expression with an operation of the first type (mathematical concepts), and
data of a result matrix of an operation of the second type, among operand matrices of the operation of the first type (mathematical concepts).
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts” or “mental steps”.
At Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements not reciting mathematical equations and mathematical calculations thereof or mental steps include:
performed by a computing device
including a matrix calculation framework module in a program of program code
at a time of compilation or execution of the program code,
is accessed from temporary storage space of the computing device.
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality to merely generally link the abstract idea to a computer system, such that the claim merely recites “apply it” in a computer. For these reasons, the additional elements, whether or alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
At Step 2B, the additional elements do not, either alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. As stated in at Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a computer system. For these reasons, claim 20 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 20 is not eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11, 13-15, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 12 and 16-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Applicant claims a matrix calculation method performed by a computing device, as in claim 1 comprising:
converting an original matrix expression included in program code into a transformation matrix expression including meta matrices, which are combinations of operations of one of first and second types and operand matrices;
calculating a calculation formula of each element of a final result matrix by evaluating the transformation matrix expression;
calculating a calculation result matrix of an operation of the second type, which is referenced as an operand matrix of the calculation formula; and
calculating element values of the final result matrix by calculating a result calculation of an operation of the first type in accordance with the calculation formula, with the use of element values of the calculation result matrix of the operation of the second type.
Norrie et al. (US 2018/0285226 A1) (hereinafter “Norrie”) teaches converting an original matrix expression (([0063] matrix operations may occur in program code that is monitored as hardware events by first and second processor components as shown in Fig. 5), into a transformation matrix including meta matrices ([0007] generating of data structure i.e., matrix containing identifying information for the various hardware events i.e., formation of transformation matrix containing meta matrices based on hardware events for first and second processor components) and using meta matrices for computation of hardware events ([0013] using meta matrices for computation of hardware events of the first processor component with respect to hardware events of the second processor component). Norrie is silent as to a calculation of a result matrix using the transformation matrix.
Ge at al. (9069716) (hereinafter “Ge”) teaches first and second type operations based on matrix size (Abstract) and conversion from first matrix size to second matrix size i.e., transformation matrix (Col. 6 Lines 55-67 and Col. 7 Lines 1-4) as well as calculation of result matrix by evaluating transformation matrix (Section “Example of Calculation Process Suited for Conversion” Cols. 9-10). Ge is silent as to meta matrices or calculating a first type operation using the second type elements.
Claims 2-15, dependent on claim 1, are therefore also allowable over the prior art.
For the same reasons as claim 1, claims 16-20 are also allowable.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
T. Chen et al., (“TVM: An Automated End-to-End Optimizing Compiler for Deep Learning”, 2018) teaches optimizing of deep learning operations through cross-thread memory reuse and latency hiding. A machine learning approach is used for optimized tensor operators in the form of computational graphs through the use of high-level frameworks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA DE JESUS RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)272-2793. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-5PM.
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, James Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.D.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2151
/James Trujillo/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2151