DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Specification. The objections to the specification are withdrawn based on amendment to the specification.
35 USC 112(b). The rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn based on amendment to claims.
35 USC 101.
Applicant asserts that the claims are not merely mathematical concepts but practical computational processes that achieve accuracy while reducing the required computing load (remarks p. 11 bottom).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims merely generally link mathematical calculations and mathematical relationships to generic computing components, falling far short of integrating into a practical application. Furthermore any accuracy achieved, and/or reduction of required computing load is a direct result of the mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations, not a result in a improvement in computing technology itself. “It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology” (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)).
Applicant further asserts that as amended claim 11 provides an improvement in technology or a technical field in the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, which integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application (remarks p. 13, p. 14). Applicant further points out that claim 11 addresses a problem of the “most computationally intensive operations in the training and inference of deep neural networks”, which is the multiply-accumulate (MAC) operation (remarks p. 13). Applicant further points to the specification paragraphs [0086-0087], for supporting that disclosed embodiments permit the precision of the weights of the DNN to be reduced without losing accuracy of the DNN prediction and thereby providing faster data analysis of parameters, and that precision of the weights of the DNN can be reduced by half without losing accuracy (remarks p. 13).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claimed elements that arguably result in maintaining of accuracy while reducing precision are the math alone. The purported improvement is a direct result of these claimed elements:
quantize the subset of floating-point values onto a flexible-power-of-two (FPoT) alphabet (see e.g., [00100];
list values in the FPoT alphabet in a plurality of regions (see e.g., fig 9B, [00103]); and
merge an empty region among each of the plurality of regions to neighbor regions to output clusters of the weights in merged regions, the merged regions having respective centroids and boundary lines in between.
Quantizing, ordering values into regions, and clustering of regions based on centroids associated boundaries is math.
Generic computing components merely execute the math. Said another way, better math can make a computer perform better. And as stated above, “It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology” (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)).
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 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Apparatus claims 11-14, and 16-20 will be addressed first, followed by method claim 1-4, and 6-10.
Regarding claim 11, under the Alice framework Step 2A prong 1, the claim recites Mathematical concepts. The claim recites mathematical calculations and mathematical relationships for quantizing and clustering values. Specifically, the claim recites the following:
calculate parameters corresponding to the DNN (see e.g., [0091] eqn 1),
use a subset of floating-point values to represent weights in the DNN (see e.g., [0098] eqn 1, fig 9A);
quantize the subset of floating-point values onto a flexible-power-of-two (FPoT) alphabet (see e.g., [00100];
list values in the FPoT alphabet in a plurality of regions (see e.g., fig 9B, [00103]); and
merge an empty region among each of the plurality of regions to neighbor regions to output clusters of the weights in merged regions, the merged regions having respective centroids and boundary lines in between (see e.g., [00104-00110]).
For these reasons, these are steps in a mathematical calculation using mathematical relationships.
Under the Alice framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, additional elements not reciting Mathematical equations and mathematical calculations thereof include: a memory system for operating a deep neural network (DNN), comprising: a data source; and a controller, implemented by at least one processor, wherein the controller is program to perform the steps recited in the Step 2A prong 1 analysis. This additional element does no more than generally link the additional element to the mathematical calculations in a manner that in effect merely recites “apply it” as to the math in a processor, or recite mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. For these reasons claim 11 is not integrated into a practical application.
Moreover, under the Alice Framework Step 2B analysis, the claim, considered individually and as an ordered combination does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed in the Step 2A prong 2 analysis, the claim merely generally links, i.e., “apply it” in a processor, the additional element to the math. Furthermore as stated in the Step 2A prong 2 analysis, the claims recite mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. For these reasons claim 11 elements considered individually and as an ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 12-14, and 16--20 are rejected for at least the reasons cited with respect to the claim 1 analysis. Under the Step 2A prong 1 analysis, claims 12-14, and 16-20 merely further mathematically limit the claim 11 mathematical elements recited. Claims 12-14, and 16-20 contain no further additional elements that would require further consideration under Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B.
Claim 1 is directed to a method that would be practiced by the apparatus as in claim 11 as configured. All steps performed in the method of claim 1 would be performed by the apparatus as in claim 11 as configured. The analysis with respect to claim 11 applies equally to claim 1.
Claims 2-4, and 6-10 are rejected for at least the reasons cited with respect to the claim 1 analysis. Under the Step 2A prong 1 analysis, claims 2-4, and 6-10 merely further mathematically limit the claim 1 mathematical elements recited. Claims 2-4, and 6-10 contain no further additional elements that would require further consideration under Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B.
Allowable Subject Matter
For the reasons set forth in the office action dated 03/06/26, claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY E LAROCQUE whose telephone number is (469)295-9289. The examiner can normally be reached on 10:00am - 1200pm, 2:00pm - 8pm ET M-F.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMILY E LAROCQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2182
Prosecution Insights