DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the
first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. The instant application claims priority to U.S. provisional application No. 63/245,148 (hereinafter; “provisional application ‘148”) filed 9/16/2021. The instant application is also a continuation in part (CIP) of U.S. Application No. 16/933,859 (hereinafter; “the parent application”), filed 7/20/2020, which claims priority to U.S. provisional application No. 63/025,580 (hereinafter; “provisional application ‘580”) filed 05/15/2020, U.S. provisional application No. 62/941,646 (hereinafter; “provisional application ‘646”) filed 11/27/2019, and U.S. provisional application No. 62/876,219 (hereinafter; “provisional application ‘219”) filed 07/19/2019.
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
As discussed below, the claimed features of dependent claims 5, 6, 8, 15, 16 and 18 are not supported by provisional application ‘219. Therefore, claims 5, 6, 8, 15, 16 and 18 do not enjoy the priority benefit of the provisional application ‘219 filed 07/19/2019.
Claims 5 and 15 recite “wherein the serial communication link is a Camera Serial Interface (CSI) of the Mobile Industry Processor Interface (MIPI)”. The as-filed specification of provisional application ‘219 and provisional application ‘148 are silent regarding a CSI interface of the MIPI standard. Thus, the discussed prior applications fail to provide adequate support of enablement for at least the above-noted element of claims 5 and 15. Based on their respective dependencies from claims 5 and 15, the specifications of the prior applications also fail to provide adequate support or enablement for dependent claims 6 and 16, respectively.
Provisional application ‘580 appears to provide adequate support and enablement for the elements of claims 5, 6, 15 and 16, as it discloses “Uses MIPI-CSI bus to move data through CNN Processor”. One of ordinary skill in the art would determine the elements of claims 6 and 16 of “MIPI packet comprises the payload portion and a metadata portion” and “send the portion of the preselected data in the metadata portion of the MIPI packet”, are inherently included in the provisional application ‘580 by the disclosed MIPI-CSI bus used to ‘move data through CNN processor’. Therefore, claims 5, 6, 15 and 16 enjoy the priority benefit of provisional application ‘580 filed 05/15/2020.
Claims 8 and 18 recite “wherein the image sensor comprises a camera;”. The as-filed specification of provisional application ‘148 is silent regarding an image sensor comprising a camera. Thus, the discussed prior application fails to provide adequate support or enablement for at least the above-noted element of claims 8 and 18.
Provisional application ‘646 filed 11/27/2019, appears to provide adequate support and enablement for the elements of claims 8 and 18, as it discloses “When a picture is taken, a digital camera initially produces a raw Bayer pixel array from the image sensor”. Therefore, claims 8 and 18 enjoy the priority benefit of provisional application ‘646 filed 11/27/2019.
The specification of the provisional application ‘219 appears to provide adequate support and enablement for the elements of claims 1-4, 7, 9-14, 17 and 19-20, as currently written. Examiner will consider if the parent application and the other, above-noted provisional applications support each dependent claim if a rejection would need to rely upon an intervening reference between the actual filing date of the instant application, 09/14/2022, and the 07/19/2019 filing of the provisional application ‘219. As such, each of the mentioned claims will receive benefit of the earliest filing date above for which a continuous chain of support can be established for the entirety of the claim.
Each claim will receive benefit of the earliest filing date above for which a continuous chain of support can be established for the entirety of the claim. As discussed above, the effective filing date for claims 1-4, 7, 9-14, 17 and 19-20 of the instant application is the filing date of provisional application ‘219, 07/19/2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/24/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
4. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3) because Figures 13, 16-18, 20, 22 and 24 include letters which do not measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height (see, e.g., most of the dimension values in Figs. 16-18, 20, 22 and 24). See MPEP 507 (A) and 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3): Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
Reference character “606” has been used to designate both “a register-module interface", in paragraph [0091] and “Config-Reg [52]x8” in Fig. 6.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description:
Reference No. 3518 in Fig. 35 is not mentioned in the disclosure (see, e.g., first chip test paragraph [00178]).
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. 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.
Specification
5. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Reference No. 3518 in Fig. 35 is not mentioned in the disclosure (see, e.g., first chip test paragraph [00178]).
Reference character “606” has been used to designate both “a register-module interface", in paragraph [0091] and “Config-Reg [52]x8” in Fig. 6.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
6. 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.
7. 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 limitation(s) uses 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:
the first processing element is configured to: generate preselected data in claim 11.
the first processing element is further configured to: (1) send… in claim 12.
the first processing element is further configured to: send… in claim 13.
the first processing element is configured to send… in claim 16.
the second processing element by being further configured to send in claim 16.
the second processing element are configured to perform at least one function of a preselected CNN in claim 19.
the first processing element and the second processing element… and configured to work together to implement a preselected CNN in claim 20.
Regarding claim 11 and the above-noted three-prong test, the recited first processing element is a generic placeholder, to generate… is functional language, and, and there’s no recitation of sufficient structure in claim 11 to perform the generating.
Regarding claims 12, 13 and 16 and the above-noted three-prong test, the recited first processing element is a generic placeholder, to send… is functional language, and there’s no recitation of sufficient structure in claims 12, 13, or 16 to perform the sending.
Regarding claims 12, 13 and 16 and the above-noted three-prong test, the recited first processing element is a generic placeholder, to send… is functional language, and there’s no recitation of sufficient structure in claims 12, 13, or 16 to perform the sending.
Regarding claims 16 and 19 and the above-noted three-prong test, the recited second processing element is a generic placeholder, to send and perform at least one function of a preselected CNN… are examples of functional language, and there’s no recitation of sufficient structure in claim 16 or 19 to perform the sending or performing functions of a preselected CNN.
Regarding claim 20 and the above-noted three-prong test, the recited first processing element and the second processing element are generic placeholders, to implement a preselected CNN … is functional language, and, and there’s no recitation of sufficient structure in claim 11 to perform the implementing.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the corresponding structure is described in the specification for the recited processing elements recited in claims 11, 12, 13, 16, 19 and 20. Specifically, claim 11 states “A processor dedicated to implementing a convolution neural network (CNN), comprising: a first processing element… and a second processing element”, meaning the processor in claim 11 contains the aforementioned processing elements being interpreted under 112(f).
Paragraph [0156] discloses “each of the processing elements (e.g., one PFU implementing multiple PFUs) may be implemented in one integrated circuit (e.g., a chip) and communication across the chips can be performed over MIPI”. Paragraph [00202] discloses “the first processing element and the second processing element are implemented in separate integrated circuits and configured to work together to implement a preselected CNN (e.g., the target CNN with a CNN graph used by the compiler to fit the target CNN to the configurable/scalable CNN processor architecture)” The processing elements are said be implemented on a physical integrated circuit/chip, which is interpreted to provide sufficient structure for said processing elements described in the claims.
8. If applicant does not intend to have 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 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 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
9. 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.
10. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed towards an
abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Independent Claim 1:
Step 1: The claim is directed to a method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The following limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
generating preselected data to be communicated using a serial communication link between a first processing element and a second processing element within the CNN processor;
Regarding the “generating preselected data”, this generating can be associated with the mental process of observation and evaluation of preselected data. Given a sufficiently small enough dataset of preselected values, but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., using a serial communication link between a first processing element and a second processing element within the CNN processor), nothing in the claim prohibits this process from being performed mentally or with a pen and paper.
If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretations (BRIs), cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., the generically-recited “serial communication link between a first processing element and a second processing element within the CNN processor”), then they fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements add insignificant extra-solution activities (necessary data gathering and data storage) to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(g)].
A method for communicating between processing elements within a processor dedicated to implementing a convolution neural network (CNN), comprising:
receiving image data from an image sensor,
sending, via the serial communication link, a first row of the first image data from the first processing element to the second processing element;
sending, via the serial communication link, a first row of the first image data from the first processing element to the second processing element;
and sending, via the serial communication link, a second row of the first image data from the first processing element to the second processing element
The following additional element does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(e)]. The claim simply recites additional information regarding the characteristics of the image data. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
the image data comprising a first image data comprising multiple rows of data;
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional elements are directed to receiving, communicating, and storing data as insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network…iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”) (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
A method for communicating between processing elements within a processor dedicated to implementing a convolution neural network (CNN), comprising:
receiving image data from an image sensor,
sending, via the serial communication link, a first row of the first image data from the first processing element to the second processing element;
sending, via the serial communication link, a first row of the first image data from the first processing element to the second processing element;
and sending, via the serial communication link, a second row of the first image data from the first processing element to the second processing element
Regarding Claim 2:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the process of claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements add insignificant extra-solution activities (necessary data gathering and data storage) to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(g)].
(1) sending, via the serial communication link, another portion of the preselected data from the first processing element to the second processing element;
(2) sending, via the serial communication link, another row of the first image data from the first processing element to the second processing element;
and repeating (1) and (2) until the entire first image data has been sent or the entire preselected data has been sent
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional elements are directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network. The courts (as per Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 / buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d at 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network 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 to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
(1) sending, via the serial communication link, another portion of the preselected data from the first processing element to the second processing element;
(2) sending, via the serial communication link, another row of the first image data from the first processing element to the second processing element;
The following limitation can be characterized as insignificant extra solution activity that is well understood routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) example (ii) provides that performing repetitive calculations has been understood by the courts to be well-understood, routine and conventional.
and repeating (1) and (2) until the entire first image data has been sent or the entire preselected data has been sent
Regarding Claim 3:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the process of claim 2.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 2.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional element does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(e)]. The claim simply recites additional information regarding the characteristics of the image data and process of sending the generated data via the serial communication link. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
wherein the image data further comprises a second image data;
The following additional elements add insignificant extra-solution activities (necessary data gathering and data storage) to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(g)].
and wherein the method further comprises: sending, via the serial communication link, another portion of the preselected data from the first processing element to the second processing element;
and sending, via the serial communication link, the second image data from the first processing element to the second processing element
wherein (1) and (2) were repeated until the entire first image data was sent;
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional elements are directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network. The courts (as per Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 / buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d at 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network 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 to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
and wherein the method further comprises: sending, via the serial communication link, another portion of the preselected data from the first processing element to the second processing element;
and sending, via the serial communication link, the second image data from the first processing element to the second processing element
The following limitation can be characterized as insignificant extra solution activity that is well understood routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) example (ii) provides that performing repetitive calculations has been understood by the courts to be well-understood, routine and conventional.
wherein (1) and (2) were repeated until the entire first image data was sent;
Regarding Claim 4:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the process of claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional element does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(e)]. The claim simply recites additional information regarding the characteristics of the preselected data transmitted between processing elements. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
wherein the preselected data comprises a tensor used by at least one of the first processing element or the second processing element to perform a CNN function
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation amounts to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological context or field of use, does not render the claim patent eligible. Therefore, claim 14 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 5:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the process of claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional element does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(e)]. The claim simply recites additional information regarding the characteristics of the serial communication link used for transmitting the preselected data. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
wherein the serial communication link is a Camera Serial Interface (CSI) of the Mobile Industry Processor Interface (MIPI)
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation amounts to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological context or field of use, does not render the claim patent eligible. Therefore, claim 5 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 6:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the process of claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements add insignificant extra-solution activities (necessary data gathering and data storage) to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(g)].
wherein the sending, via the serial communication link, the first row of the first image data from the first processing element to the second processing element comprises sending the first row of the first image data in a payload portion of a MIPI packet,
and wherein the sending, via the serial communication link, the portion of the preselected data comprises sending the portion of the preselected data in the metadata portion of the MIPI packet
The following additional element does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(e)]. The claim simply recites additional information regarding the characteristics of the image data sent via the serial communication link. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
wherein the MIPI packet comprises the payload portion and a metadata portion;
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional elements are directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network. The courts (as per Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 / buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d at 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network 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 to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the sending, via the serial communication link, the first row of the first image data from the first processing element to the second processing element comprises sending the first row of the first image data in a payload portion of a MIPI packet,
and wherein the sending, via the serial communication link, the portion of the preselected data comprises sending the portion of the preselected data in the metadata portion of the MIPI packet
Regarding Claim 7:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the process of claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional element does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(e)]. The claim simply recites additional information regarding the characteristics of the serial communication link used to transmit data between processing elements. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
wherein the serial communication link is implemented using at least one of a Camera Serial Interface (CSI) of the Mobile Industry Processor Interface (MIPI), a High-Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI), or a Serializer/Deserializer (SerDes)
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation amounts to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological context or field of use, does not render the claim patent eligible. Therefore, claim 7 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 8:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the process of claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements do not meaningfully limit the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(e)]. The claim simply recites additional information regarding the characteristics of the image data and components used for the generation of the data. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
wherein the image sensor comprises a camera;
and wherein the image data comprises video data comprising multiple frames
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological context or field of use, does not render the claim patent eligible. Therefore, claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 9:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the process of claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional element is adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
wherein each of the first processing element and the second processing element are configured to perform at least one function of a preselected CNN,
The following additional element does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(e)]. The claim simply recites additional information regarding the characteristics of the function performed by the processing elements on the generated data. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
the at least one function comprising at least one of convolution, batch normalization, pooling, or activation
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Implementing the abstract idea by merely applying it using generic computer components, without more, does not amount to an inventive concept. Further, limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological context or field of use, does not render the claim patent eligible. Therefore, claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 10:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the process of claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements do not meaningfully limit the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(e)]. The claim simply recites additional information regarding the characteristics of the processing elements used in the generation and transmission of data. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
wherein the first processing element and the second processing element are implemented in separate integrated circuits
The following additional element is adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
and configured to work together to implement a preselected CNN
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Implementing the abstract idea by merely applying it using generic computer components, without more, does not amount to an inventive concept. Further, limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological context or field of use, does not render the claim patent eligible. Therefore, claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Independent Claim 11:
Step 1: The claim is directed to a processor, corresponding to an article of manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The following limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
wherein the first processing element is configured to1: generate preselected data to be communicated using the serial communication link;
Regarding the “the first processing element is configured to: generate preselected data”, this generating can be associated with the mental process of observation and evaluation of preselected data. Given a sufficiently small enough dataset of preselected values, but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., using a serial communication link between a first processing element and a second processing element within the CNN processor), nothing in the claim prohibits this process from being performed mentally or with a pen and paper.
If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretations (BRIs), cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., the generically-recited “first processing element coupled to an image sensor; and a second processing element coupled to the first processing element via a serial communication link”), then they fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 11 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional element is adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
A processor dedicated to implementing a convolution neural network (CNN), comprising:
The following additional elements add insignificant extra-solution activities (necessary data gathering and data storage) to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(g)].
receive image data from the image sensor,
send, via the serial communication link, a portion of the preselected data to the second processing element;
and send, via the serial communication link, a second row of the first image data to the second processing element
The following additional element does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(e)]. The claim simply recites additional information regarding the characteristics of the image data. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
a first processing element coupled to an image sensor;
and a second processing element coupled to the first processing element via a serial communication link;
the image data comprising a first image data comprising multiple rows of data;
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional elements are directed to receiving, communicating, and storing data as insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network…iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”) (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
receive image data from the image sensor,
send, via the serial communication link, a portion of the preselected data to the second processing element;
and send, via the serial communication link, a second row of the first image data to the second processing element
Regarding Claim 12:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the article of manufacture of claim 11.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 11.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements add insignificant extra-solution activities (necessary data gathering and data storage) to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(g)].
wherein the first processing element is further configured to: (1) send, via the serial communication link, another portion of the preselected data to the second processing element;
(2) send, via the serial communication link, another row of the first image data to the second processing element;
and repeat (1) and (2) until the entire first image data has been sent or the entire preselected data has been sent
The following additional elements are directed to receiving, communicating, and storing data as insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network…iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”) (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
wherein the first processing element is further configured to: (1) send, via the serial communication link, another portion of the preselected data to the second processing element;
(2) send, via the serial communication link, another row of the first image data to the second processing element;
The following limitation can be characterized as insignificant extra solution activity that is well understood routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) example (ii) provides that performing repetitive calculations has been understood by the courts to be well-understood, routine and conventional.
and repeat (1) and (2) until the entire first image data has been sent or the entire preselected data has been sent
Regarding Claim 13:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the article of manufacture of claim 12.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 2.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional element does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(e)]. The claim simply recites additional information regarding the characteristics of the image data and process of sending the generated data via the serial communication link. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
wherein the image data further comprises a second image data;
The following additional elements add insignificant extra-solution activities (necessary data gathering and data storage) to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(g)].
and wherein the first processing element is further configured to: send, via the serial communication link, another portion of the preselected data to the second processing element;
and send, via the serial communication link, the second image data to the second processing element
wherein (1) and (2) were repeated until the entire first image data was sent;
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional elements are directed to receiving, communicating, and storing data as insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network…iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”) (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
and wherein the first processing element is further configured to: send, via the serial communication link, another portion of the preselected data to the second processing element;
and send, via the serial communication link, the second image data to the second processing element
The following limitation can be characterized as insignificant extra solution activity that is well understood routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) example (ii) provides that performing repetitive calculations has been understood by the courts to be well-understood, routine and conventional.
wherein (1) and (2) were repeated until the entire first image data was sent;
Regarding Claim 14:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the article of manufacture of claim 11.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 11.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional element does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(e)]. The claim simply recites additional information regarding the characteristics of the preselected data transmitted between processing elements. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
wherein the preselected data comprises a tensor used by at least one of the first processing element or the second processing element to perform a CNN function
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation amounts to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological context or field of use, does not render the claim patent eligible. Therefore, claim 14 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 15:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the article of manufacture of claim 11.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 11.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional element does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(e)]. The claim simply recites additional information regarding the characteristics of the serial communication link used for transmitting the preselected data. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
wherein the serial communication link is a Camera Serial Interface (CSI) of the Mobile Industry Processor Interface (MIPI)
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation amounts to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological context or field of use, does not render the claim patent eligible. Therefore, claim 15 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 16:
Step 1: The claim is directed to the article of manufacture of claim 11.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 11.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements add insignificant extra-solution activities (necessary data gathering and data storage) to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(g)].
wherein the first processing element is configured to send, via the serial communication link, a first row of the first image data to the second processing element by being further configured to send the first row of the first image data in a payload portion of a MIPI packet,
and wherein the first processing element is configured to send, via the serial communication link, the portion of the preselected data by being further configured to send the portion of the preselected data in the metadata portion of the MIPI packet
The following additional element does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(e)]. The claim simply recites additional information regarding the characteristics of the image data sent via the serial communication link. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
wherein the MIPI packet comprises the payload portion and a metadata portion;
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The fo