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 October 3 rd , 2022. Claims 1-24 are pending, of which claims 1-24 are currently rejected. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 10/14/2021. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Objections Claims 4-5 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4 line 4 “2*2 second matrices” should be “2*2 subblocks”. Claims 5 line 6 “3*3 second matrices” should be “3*3 subblocks”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim 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. The following limitations are interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: Claim 1, “a matrix unknit-knit device…configured to unknit a first matrix into s*s second matrices or knit the s*s second matrices…into the first matrix”. The corresponding structure in the disclosure for performing the claimed unknitting of a first matrix into s*s second matrices or knit the s*s second matrices into the first matrix is disclosed in [0007] , [0037] and shown in Fig. 9 Element 110. Claim 1, “a convolution operation device…unknits a convolution kernel used for performing the convolution operation…”. The corresponding structure in the disclosure for performing the claimed unknitting of a convolution kernel is disclosed in [0040]. Claim 2, “a matrix unknit-knit device reads the first matrix from the data memory…splits the first matrix…collects pixels at a same position.” The corresponding structure in the disclosure for perf ormi ng the claimed reading, splitting, and collecting is disclosed in [0007], [0037] and shown in Fig. 9 Element 110. Claim 7, “an execution unit…configured to unknit the first matrix.” The corresponding structure in the disclosure for performing the claimed unknitting of the first matrix is disclosed in [0040]. Claim 15, “an execution unit… configured to unknit the first matrix”. The corresponding structure in the disclosure for performing the claimed unknitting is disclosed in [0040]. Claim 16, “the execution unit reads the first matrix…splits the first matrix…collects pixels.” The corresponding structure in the disclosure for performing the claimed reading, splitting, and collecting is disclosed in [0040]. Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1- 14 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 1 recites the limitation “a stride” on line 12. It is unclear if this mention of “a stride” is the same as the mention of “a stride” of line 1 . For examination purposes, the “ stride ” of line 1 2 will be construed to be the “ stride” of line 1 . Appropriate correction is required. Because claims 2- 7 depend upon claim 1, claims 2- 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 8 recites the limitation “a stride” on line 8. It is unclear if this mention of “a stride” is the same as the mention of “a stride” of line 1. For examination purposes, the “stride” of line 8 will be construed to be the “stride” of line 1. Appropriate correction is required. Because claims 9-14 depend upon claim 8, claims 9-14 are also 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- 24 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 (machine). At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea. Claim language recites partitioning matrices for a convolution operation with a stride greater than 1 . Below are the limitations of claim 1 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts: to perform a convolution operation with a stride greater than 1 to unknit a first matrix i nto s*s second matrices or knit the s*s second matrices into the first matrix, wherein the s is an integer greater than l and is the stride of the convolution operation, the first matrix is split into a plurality of s*s subblocks, and s*s pixels in each of the plurality of s*s sub blocks serve one-to-one as one pixel of the s*s second matrices; unknits a convolution kernel used for perfo rm ing the convolution operation with a stride of s on the first matrix into s*s sub-kernels according to the s*s pixels, the s*s sub-kernels are applied one-to-one to the s*s second matrices, the convolution operation device uses any one of the s*s sub-kernels to perform a convolution operation with a stride of 1 on one corresponding second m atrix among the s*s second matrices to generate a first operation result, and accumulates the first operation result of each of the s*s second matrices as a second operation result of performing the convolution operation with the stride of s on the first matrix. All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”. At Step 2A Prong 2, these are the additional elements recited in claim 1: A convolution apparatus a data memory a matrix unknit-knit device coupled to the data memory a convolution operation device coupled to the data memory These elements are generic computer components and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These elements represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. At Step 2B, there are no additional elements claimed that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The additional elements at best are the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible. Regarding claim 2, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (machine). 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: splits the first matrix into the plurality of s*s subblocks, and collects pixels at a same position in the plurality of s*s subblocks as pixels of one of the s*s second matrices to unknit the first matrix into the s*s second matrices. All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”. At Step 2A Prong 2, these are the additional elements recited in claim 2: wherein the matrix unknit-knit device r eads the first matrix from the data memory (insignificant extra-solution activity) These elements are generic computer components and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These elements represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. At Step 2B, there are no additional elements claimed, whether alone or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The additional elements at best are the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. In regards to the insignificant extra-solution activity found in this limitation “ wherein the matrix unknit-knit device reads the first matrix from the data memory ”, 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: i . Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE , Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); 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. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible. Regarding claim 3, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (machine). 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: splits the first matrix into the plurality of s*s subb l ocks, collect s pixels at a same position in the s*s second matrices as pixels of one of the plurality of s*s sub blocks of the first matrix to knit the s*s second matrices into the first matrix. All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”. At Step 2A Prong 2, these are the additional elements recited in claim 3 : wherein the matrix unknit-knit device r eads the first matrix from the data memory (insignificant extra-solution activity) These elements are generic computer components and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These elements represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. At Step 2B, there are no additional elements claimed, whether alone or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The additional elements at best are the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. In regards to the insignificant extra-solution activity found in this limitation “ wherein the matrix unknit-knit device reads the first matrix from the data memory ”, 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: i . Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE , Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); 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. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible. Regarding claim 4, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (machine). 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: w herein the stride s of the convolution operation is 2, the first matrix is split into a plurality of 2*2 subblocks, the 2*2 pixels in each of the plurality of 2*2 subblocks comprise an upper left pixel, an upper right pixel, a lower left pixel, and a lower right pixel, the 2*2 second m atrices comprise a first unknitted matrix, a second unknitted matrix, a third unknitted matrix, and a fourth unknitted matrix, the upper left pixel of the plurality of 2*2 subblocks serve as a pixel of the first unknitted matrix, the upper right pix el of the plurality of 2*2 subblocks serve as a pixel of the second unknitted matrix, the lower left pixel of the plurality of2*2 subblocks serve as a pixel of the third unknitted matrix, and the lower right pixel of the plurality of 2*2 subblocks serve as a pixel of the fourth unknitted matrix. All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”. At Step 2A Prong 2, there are no additional elements beyond those recited in claim 1. The claim is not eligible. Regarding claim 5, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (machine). 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: wherein the stride s of the convolution operation is 3, the first matrix is split into a plurality of 3 *3 sub blocks, the 3 *3 pixels in each of the plurality of 3 * 3 subblocks comprise an upper left pixel, upper middle pixel, upper right pixel, middle left pixel, middle middle pixel, middle right pixel, lower left pixel, lower middle pixel, and lower right pixel, the 3*3 second matrices comprise a first unknitted matrix, a second unknitted matrix, a third unknitted matrix, a fourth unknitted matrix, a fifth unknitted matrix, a sixth unknitted matrix, a seventh unk ni tted matrix, an eighth unln1itted matrix, and a ninth unknitted matrix, the upper left pixel of the plurality of 3*3 sub blocks serve as a pixel of the first unknitted matrix, the upper middle pixel of the plurality of 3*3 subblocks serve as a pixel of the second unknitted matrix, the upper right pixel of the plurality of 3*3 subb1ocks serve as a pixel of the third unknitted matrix, the middle left pixel of the plurality of 3*3 sub blocks serve as a pixel of 25 the fourth unknitted matrix, the middle middle pixel of the plurality of 3*3 subblocks serve as a pixel of the fifth unknitted matrix, the middle right pixel of the plurality of 3*3 subblocks serve as a pixel of the sixth unk11itted matrix, the lower left pixel of the plurality of 3*3 s ubbl ocks serve as a pixel of the seventh unknitted matrix, the l ow er middle pixel of the plurality of 3*3 sub blocks serve as a pixel of the eighth unknitted matrix, and the lo w er right pixel of the plurality of 3 *3 subblocks serve as a pixel of the ninth unknitted matrix. All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”. At Step 2A Prong 2, there are no additional elements beyond those recited in claim 1. The claim is not eligible. Regarding claim 6, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (machine). 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: wherein the stride s of the convolution operation is 2, the convolution kernel is a 3 *3 matrix, the convolution kernel is unknitted into a first sub-kernel, a second sub-kernel, a third sub-kernel, and a fourth sub-kernel, the first sub - kernel is a 2*2 matrix and comprises an upper left pixel, an upper right pixel, a lower left pixel, and a l ow er right pixel of the convolution kernel, the second sub-kernel is a 2* 1 matrix and comprises an upper middle pixel and a lower middle pixel of the convolution kernel, the third sub - kernel is 1 *2 matrix and co m prises a middle left pixel and a middle right pixel of the convolution kernel, and the fourth sub-kernel is a 1 *1 matrix and comprises a middle middle pixel of the convolution kernel. All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”. At Step 2A Prong 2, there are no additional elements beyond those recited in claim 1. The claim is not eligible. Regarding claim 7, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (machine). 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: to unknit the first matrix into the s*s second matrices or knit the s*s second matrices into the first matrix. All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”. At Step 2A Prong 2, these are the additional elements recited in claim 7 : a temporary register configured to read the first matrix or the s*s second matrices from the data memory (insignificant extra-solution activity) an execution unit coupled to the temporary register These elements are generic computer components and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These elements represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. At Step 2B, there are no additional elements claimed, whether alone or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The additional elements at best are the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. In regards to the insignificant extra-solution activity found in this limitation “ a temporary register configured to read the first matrix or the s*s second matrices from the data memory ”, 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: i . Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE , Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); 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. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible. Claims 8-14 recite the method practiced by the apparatus of claims 1-7 respectively and are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons therein. Regarding claim 15, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (machine). At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea. Claim language recites partitioning of matrices for a convolution operation with a stride greater than 1. Below are the limitations of claim 15 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts: to perform a convolution operation with a stride greater than 1 to unknit the first matrix into the s*s second matrices or knit the s*s second matrices into the first matrix, wherein the s is an integer greater than 1 and is the stride of the convolution operation, the first matrix is split into a plurality of s*s sub blocks, and s*s pixels in each of the plura l ity of s*s sub blocks serve one-to-one as one pixel of the s*s second matrices. All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”. At Step 2A Prong 2, these are the additional elements recited in claim 1 5 : A matrix unknit-knit device a temporary register configured to read a first matrix or s*s second matrices from a data memory (insignificant extra-solution activity) an execution unit coupled to the temporary register These elements are generic computer components and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These elements represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. At Step 2B, there are no additional elements claimed, whether alone or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The additional elements at best are the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. In regards to the insignificant extra-solution activity found in this limitation “ a temporary register configured to read the first matrix or the s*s second matrices from the data memory ”, 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: i . Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE , Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); 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. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible. Regarding claim 16, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (machine). At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea. Below are the limitations of claim 16 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts: splits the first matrix into the plurality of s*s subblocks, collects pixels at a same position in the plurality of s*s subblocks as pixels of one of the s*s second matrices to unknit the first matrix into the s*s second matrices. All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”. At Step 2A Prong 2, these are the additional elements recited in claim 16: wherein the execution unit reads the first matrix from the temporary register (insignificant extra-solution activity) These elements are generic computer components and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These elements represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. At Step 2B, there are no additional elements claimed, whether alone or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The additional elements at best are the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. In regards to the insignificant extra-solution activity found in this limitation “ wherein the execution unit reads t he first matrix from the temporary register ”, 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: i . Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE , Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); 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. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible. Regarding claim 17, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (machine). At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea. Below are the limitations of claim 1 7 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts: splits the first matrix into the plurality of s*s subblocks, collects pixels at a same position in the s*s second matrices as pixels as of one of the plurality of s*s subblocks of the first matrix to knit the s*s second matrices into the first matrix . All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”. At Step 2A Prong 2, these are the additional elements recited in claim 1 7 : wherein the execution unit reads the s*s second matrices from the temporary register (insignificant extra-solution activity) These elements are generic computer components and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These elements represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. At Step 2B, there are no additional elements claimed, whether alone or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The additional elements at best are the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. In regards to the insignificant extra-solution activity found in this limitation “ wherein the execution unit reads the s*s second matrices from the temporary register ”, 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: i . Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE , Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); 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. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible. Regarding claim 18, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (machine). 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: wherein the stride s is 2, the first matrix is split into a plurality of 2*2 subblocks, the 2*2 pixels in each of the plurality of 2*2 subblocks comprise an upper left pixel, an upper right pixel, a lower left pixel, and a lower right pixel, the 2*2 second matrices comprise a first unknitted matrix, a second unknitted matrix, a third unknitted matrix, and a fourth unknitted matrix, the upper left pixel of the plurality of 2*2 subblocks serve as a pixel of the first unknitted matrix, the upper right pixel of the plurality of 2*2 subblocks serve as a pixel of the second unknitted matrix, the lower left pixel of the plurality of 20 2*2 subb l ocks serve as a pixel of the third unknitted matrix, and the lower right pixel of the plurality of 2*2 subblocks serve as a pixel of the fourth unknitted matrix. All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”. At Step 2A Prong 2, there are no additional elements beyond those recited in claim 15. The claim is not eligible. Regarding claim 19, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (machine). 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: wherein the stride s is 3, the first matrix is split into a plurality of 3*3 subblocks, the 3*3 pixels in each of the p l urality of 3*3 subblocks comprise an upper left pixel, upper middle pixel, upper right pixel, midd l e left pixel, middle middle pixel, middle right pixel, lower left pixel, lower middle pixel, and lower right pixel, the 3*3 second matrices comp ri se a first unknitted m atrix, a second unknitted matrix, a third unknitted m atrix, a fourth unknitted matrix, a fifth unknitted matrix, a sixth unknitted matrix, a seventh unknitted matrix, an eighth unknitted matrix, and a ninth unknitted matrix, the upper left pixel of the plurality of 3 *3 sub blocks serve as a pixel of the first unknitted matrix, the upper middle pixel of the plurality of 3 *3 su b blocks serve as a pixel of the second unknitted matrix, the upper right pixel of the plurality of 3*3 sub blocks serve as a pixel of the third unknitted matrix, the middle left pixel of the plurality of 3 *3 subblocks serve as a pixel of the fourth unknitted matrix, the middle middle pixel of the plurality of 3*3 subblocks serve as a pixel of the fifth unknitted matrix, the middle right pixel of the plurality of 3 *3 sub blocks serve as a pixel of the sixth unknitted matrix, the lower left pixel of the plurality of 3*3 sub blocks serve as a pixel of the seventh unknitted matrix, the lower middle pixel of the plurality of 3*3 sub blocks serve as a pixel of the eighth u nknitted matrix, and the lower right pixel of the plurality of3*3 subblocks serve as a pixel of the ninth unknitted matrix. All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”. At Step 2A Prong 2, there are no additional elements beyond those recited in claim 15. The claim is not eligible. Claims 20-24 recite the method practiced by the apparatus recited in claims 15-19 respectively and are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons therein. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1- 2 , 5, 7- 9 , 12, 14- 16 , 19- 2 1 , and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han ( US 2021/0011970 A1 ) (hereinafter “Han”), further in view of Kodavanji et al. US 2021/0334335 (hereinafter “ Kodavanji ”). Regarding claim 1, Han teaches: A convolution apparatus configured to perform a convolution operation with a stride greater than 1, the convolution apparatus comp r ising: a data memory (Han: Fig. 2 Element 70 as data memory; ¶ 0040 memory 70 for storing data for operation of neural network accelerator) ; a matrix unknit-knit device coupled to the data memory (Han: Fig. 2 Element 80 neural network accelerator as matrix knit-unknit device) and configured to unknit a first matrix stored in the data memory into s*s second matrices or knit the s*s second matrices stored in the data memory into the first matrix (Han: ¶ 0011 first matrix of M × K dimensions being split into multiple sub-matrices i.e . , second matrices ) ; and a convolution operation device coupled to the data memory (Han: Fig. 2 element 86) , wherein the convolution operation device unknits a convolution kernel used for perfor m ing the convolution operation (Han: ¶ 0012 convolution device unknits the matrices into submatrices) the s*s sub-kernels are applied one-to-one to the s*s second matrices (Han: Fig. 1A input feature from submatrix 11 being applied 1 to 1 to kernel 20; also discussed in ¶ 0034 - ¶ 0035) , the convolution operation device uses any one of the s*s sub-kernels to perform a convolution operation with a stride of 1 on one corresponding second m atrix among the s*s second matrices to generate a first operation result (Han: Fig. 1A element 30 is convolution result i.e., first operation result) , and the convolution operation device accumulates the first operation result of each of the s*s second matrices as a second operation result of performing the convolution operation with the stride of s on the first matrix (Han: ¶ 0059 after convolution, accumulation of convolution operations occurs in ACC accumulation register) . Han does not explicitly teach: wherein the s is an integer greater than l and is the stride of the convolution operation , the first matrix is split into a plurality of s*s subblocks, and s*s pixels in each of the plurality of s*s sub blocks serve one-to-one as one pixel of the s*s second matrices; for performing the convolution operation with a stride of s on the first matrix into s*s sub-kernels according to the s*s pixels . However, Kodavanji teaches: wherein the s is an integer greater than l and is the stride of the convolution operation , the first matrix is split into a plurality of s*s subblocks, and s*s pixels in each of the plurality of s*s sub blocks serve one-to-one as one pixel of the s*s second matrices ( Kodavanji : submatrices being split into MxM dimension matrices i.e., square matrices and stride/step size would be M, Fig. 3 shows M being 3 which i s greater than 1) ; for performing the convolution operation with a stride of s on the first matrix into s*s sub-kernels according to the s*s pixels ( Kodavanji : submatrices being split into MxM dimension matrices i.e., square matrices and stride/step size would be M ) . It would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the dimension based stride as taught by Kodavanji with the unknitting and convolution operation as taught by Han as both references are directed towards matrix convolution operations. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references because doing so would optimize allocation of inputs to memory spaces ( Kodavanji : ¶ 0058) . Regarding claim 2, Han teaches: The convolution apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the matrix unknit-knit device reads the first matrix from the data memory (Han: Fig. 2 Element 70; ¶ 0040 memory 70 for storing data for operation of neural network accelerator, first matrix would have to be accessed from data memory for operations ). While Han does teach splitting the matrix into second matrices, Han does not explicitly teach: the matrix unknit-knit device splits the first matrix into the plurality of s*s subblocks, and the matrix unknit-knit device collects pixels at a same position in the plurality of s*s subblocks as pixels of one of the s*s second matrices to unknit the first matrix into the s*s second matrices. However, Kodavanji teaches: the matrix unknit-knit device splits the first matrix into the plurality of s*s subblocks, and the matrix unknit-knit device collects pixels at a same position in the plurality of s*s subblocks as pixels of one of the s*s second matrices to unknit the first matrix into the s*s second matrices ( Kodavanji : ¶ 0013 submatrices being split into MxM dimension matrices and stride/step size would be M, Fig. 3 shows M being 3 which is greater than 1) . The motivation to combine with respect to claim 1 applies equally to claim 2. Regarding claim 5, while Han teaches splitting of matrix into various sub-matrices for convolution operations, Han does not explicitly teach the first matrix being split into 9 sub-matrices. However, Kodavanji teaches: The convolution apparatus according to claim 1 , wherein the stride s of the convolution operation is 3 ( Kodavanji : ¶ 0013 submatrices being split into MxM dimension matrices and stride/step size would be M, Fig. 3 shows M being 3 which is greater than 1 ; exemplary partitioning is shown in Fig. 2 having convolutions occurring with stride M=3) , the first matrix is split into a plurality of 3 *3 sub blocks ( Kodavanji : Fig. 2) , the 3 *3 pixels in each of the plurality of 3 * 3 subblocks comprise an upper left pixel, upper middle pixel, upper right pixel, middle left pixel, middle middle pixel, middle right pixel, lower left pixel, lower middle pixel, and lower right pixel ( Kodavanji : Fig. 2 each of the subblocks comprise nine pixels) , the 3*3 second matrices comprise a first unknitted matrix, a second unknitted matrix, a third unknitted matrix, a fourth unknitted matrix, a fifth unknitted matrix, a sixth unknitted matrix, a seventh unkn i tted matrix, an eighth u nkn itted matrix, and a ninth unknitted matrix ( Kodavanji : Fig. 2 first through ninth unknitted matrices are present after partitioning) , the upper left pixel of the plurality of 3*3 sub blocks serve as a pixel of the first unknitted matrix, the upper middle pixel of the plurality of 3*3 subblocks serve as a pixel of the second unknitted matrix, the upper right pixel of the plurality of 3*3 subb l ocks serve as a pixel of the third unknitted matrix, the middle left pixel of the plurality of 3*3 sub blocks serve as a pixel of the fourth unknitted matrix, the middle middle pixel of the plurality of 3*3 subblocks serve as a pixel of the fifth unknitted matrix, the middle right pixel of the plurality of 3*3 subblocks serve as a pixel of the sixth unk11itted matrix, the lower left pixel of the plurality of 3*3 su bblo cks serve as a pixel of the seventh unknitted matrix, the l ow er middle pixel of the plurality of 3*3 sub blocks serve as a pixel of the eighth unknitted matrix, and the lo w er right pixel of the plurality of 3*3 subblocks serve as a pixel of the ninth unknitted matrix ( Kodavanji : Fig. 2 shows corresponding subblocks and pixels as partitioned) . The motivation to combine with respect to claim 1 applies equally to claim 5 . Regarding claim 7, while Han teaches the execution unit for unknitting the first matrix into second matrices (Han: ¶ 0012 convolution device unknits matrices into submatrices ; Fig. 2 element 86), Han does not teach a temporary register coupled to the execution unit. However, Kodavanji teaches: a temporary register configured to read the first matrix or the s*s second matrices from the data memory ( Kodavanji : ¶ 0024 inputs including from first matrix provided to I/O registers before being partitioned) ; and an execution unit coupled to the temporary register ( Kodavanji : ¶ 0024 I/O registers being coupled to execution unit for partitioning) . Claims 8- 9 , 12 and 14 recite the method practiced by the apparatus of claims 1- 2 , 5 and 7 respectively, and are therefore rejected for the same reasons therein. Regarding claim 15, Han teaches: A matrix unknit-knit device configured to perform a convolution operation with a stride greater than 1, wherein the matrix unknit-knit device comprises: t o read a first matrix or s*s second matrices fro m a data memory (Han: Fig. 2 Element 70 as data memory; ¶ 0040 memory 70 for storing data for operation of neural network accelerator) ; and an execution unit (Han: Fig. 2 Element 80 neural network accelerator as matrix knit-unknit device) configured to unknit the first matrix stored in the