DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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. Such claim limitations are as recited in claim 16:
an acquisition module;
a first processing module; and
a second processing module.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
In review of the disclosure the structure for the above modules is interpreted to include central processing units with data processing capabilities and/or instruction execution capabilities; one circuit board or a combination of multiple circuit boards including input and output connections or equivalents. See [0187].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figures 4B and 5B contain characters that are not legible. The operand values inside the boxes are blurry. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities. Paragraphs [0043], [0065], [0072] refer to a jie-ma part as a literal translation in Chinese to the English phrase the exponent part. This literal translation is not a known phrase in the English language.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim] objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 3 lines 5-6 recite “significant bits of mantissa of the first sub-element”. This should recite “significant bits of a mantissa of the first sub-element”. Claims 4-7 inherit the same deficiency as claim 3 based on dependence.
Claim 8 line 3 recites “significant bits of mantissa of the first accuracy type”. This should recite “significant bits of a mantissa of the first accuracy type”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-17 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 lines 4-5 recite “for each of the input tensors, using M input sub-tensors that are combined to represent the input tensors”. It is unclear whether the act of combining is being positively claimed as part of the “using” or whether the “using” is distinct from the combining, and the combining is performed by some unknown, unclaimed action. For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets as positively reciting combining using M input sub-tensors. Claims 2-15 inherit the same deficiency as claim 1 based on dependence. Claims 16 and 17 recite substantially the same limitation and are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 2 line 3 recites “for each of the input tensors, step of using the M input sub-tensors”. For antecedent basis reasons, it is unclear whether “step of using the M input sub-tensors” is the same as “using M input sub-tensors” as recited in claim 1 line 4 or a different step. For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets as the same and suggests amending to recite “the step of using the M input sub-tensors”. Claims 3-7 inherit the same deficiency as claim 2 based on dependence.
Claim 3 line 2 recites “for each of the parameter elements in the input tensors, step of splitting the parameter element into M sub-elements”. For antecedent basis reasons, it is unclear whether “step of splitting the parameter element into M sub-elements” is the same as “splitting the parameter element into M sub-elements” as recited in claim 2 or a different step. For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets as the same and suggests amending to recite “the step of splitting the parameter element into M sub-elements”. Claims 4-7 inherit the same deficiency as claim 3 based on dependence.
Claim 5 lines 7-8 recite “step of determining the other M-1 sub-elements in the M sub-elements except the first sub-element comprises:”. For antecedent basis reasons, it is unclear whether “step of determining the other M-1 sub-elements in the M sub-elements except the first sub-element” is the same as “determining other M-1 sub-elements in the M sub-elements except the first sub-element” as recited in claim 3 or a different step. For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets as the same and suggests amending to recite “the step of determining the other M-1 sub-elements in the M sub-elements except the first sub-element”. Claims 6-7 inherit the same deficiency as claim 5 based on dependence.
Claim 8 lines 6-7 recite “step of replacing the input tensors with the combined M input sub-tensors”. For antecedent basis reasons, it is unclear whether “step of replacing the input tensors with the combined M input sub-tensors” is the same as “replacing the input tensors with the combined M input sub-tensors” as recited in claim 1 or a different step. For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets as the same and suggests amending to recite “the step of replacing the input tensors with the combined M input sub-tensors”.
Claim 9 lines 7-8 recite “step of replacing the input tensors with the combined M input sub-tensors”. For antecedent basis reasons, it is unclear whether “step of replacing the input tensors with the combined M input sub-tensors” is the same as “replacing the input tensors with the combined M input sub-tensors” as recited in claim 1 or a different step. For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets as the same and suggests amending to recite “the step of replacing the input tensors with the combined M input sub-tensors”. Claim 10 inherits the same deficiency as claim 9 based on dependence.
Claim 9 line 14 recites “using combined W intermediate sub-tensors”. The variable W is undefined. Claim 10 inherits the same deficiency as claim 9 based on dependence.
Claim 10 line 3 recites “step of using the combined W intermediate sub-tensors whose type is the third accuracy type”. For antecedent basis reasons, it is unclear whether “step of using the combined W intermediate sub-tensors whose type is the third accuracy type” is the same as “using combined W intermediate sub-tensors whose type is the third accuracy type” as recited in claim 9 or a different step. For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets as the same and suggests amending to recite “the step of using the combined W intermediate sub-tensors whose type is the third accuracy type”.
Claim 14 recites FP32, BF16, and BF24. These terms are undefined.
Claim 17 lines 4-5 recite “after parsing the data calculation instruction, using a data processing unit to execute the data calculation instruction”. It is unclear whether the act of parsing the data calculation instruction is being positively claimed or whether the “parsing” is performed by some unknown, unclaimed action. For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets as positively reciting parsing the data calculation instruction.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, under the Alice framework Step 2A prong 1, the claim recites Mathematical concepts and a mental step. The claim recites mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations related to conversion from one tensor format to another and performing a calculation, and mental steps of acquiring tensors. Specifically, the claim recites the following:
acquiring a plurality of input tensors as input parameters for a calculation process, wherein the plurality of input tensors are of a first accuracy type;
for each of the input tensors, using M input sub-tensors that are combined to represent the input tensors, wherein the M input sub-tensors have at least two accuracy types, the at least two accuracy types and the first accuracy type are different from each other, and M is an integer greater than 1;
for each of the input tensors, replacing the input tensors with the combined M input sub-tensors, and performing the calculation process to obtain a calculation result.
For these reasons, the claim recites mathematical calculations and mathematical relationships, and mental steps.
Under the Alice framework Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B analysis, the claim recites no additional elements that would require further consideration. Therefore claim 1 is neither integrated into a practical application nor significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 16, under the Alice framework Step 2A prong 1, the claim recites Mathematical concepts. The claim recites mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations related to conversion from one tensor format to another and performing a calculation. Specifically, the claim recites the following:
input tensors as input parameters for a calculation process, wherein the plurality of input tensors are of a first accuracy type;
for each of the input tensors, use M input sub-tensors that are combined to represent the input tensors, wherein the M input sub-tensors have at least two accuracy types, the at least two accuracy types and the first accuracy type are different from each other, and M is an integer greater than 1;
for each of the input tensors, replace the input tensors with the combined M input sub-tensors, and performing the calculation process to obtain a calculation result.
For these reasons, the claim recites mathematical calculations and mathematical relationships.
Under the Alice framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, the claim recites the following additional elements: an acquisition module, configured to acquire a plurality of input tensors as input parameters, a first processing module, and a second processing module. Each of the modules are recited at a high generality, wherein in interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) for each module, the modules are merely configured as generic processors including central processing units with data processing capabilities and/or instruction execution capabilities. This generic recitation merely recites “apply it” as to the abstract idea in a processor. Furthermore, the acquiring of a plurality of input tensors be the acquisition module merely recites an insignificant extra solution activity. For these reasons, claim 16 is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the step 2B analysis, as set forth in step 2A prong 2, the claim merely applies the abstract idea in a generically recited processor. Furthermore the acquiring of a plurality of input tensors comprises well understood, routine, and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).I. Receiving or transmitting data over a network. For these reasons claim 15 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 17, under the Alice framework Step 2A prong 1, the claim recites Mathematical concepts. The claim recites mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations related to conversion from one tensor format to another and performing a calculation. Specifically, the claim recites the following:
input tensors as input parameters for a calculation process, wherein the plurality of input tensors are of a first accuracy type;
for each of the input tensors, using M input sub-tensors that are combined to represent the input tensors, wherein the M input sub-tensors have at least two accuracy types, the at least two accuracy types and the first accuracy type are different from each other, and M is an integer greater than 1;
for each of the input tensors, replacing the input tensors with the combined M input sub-tensors, and performing the calculation process to obtain a calculation result.
For these reasons, the claim recites mathematical calculations and mathematical relationships.
Under the Alice framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, the claim recites the following additional elements: receiving a data calculation instruction, wherein the data calculation instruction comprises a plurality of input tensors as calculation input parameters, after parsing the data calculation instruction, using a data processing unit to execute the data calculation instruction. This generic recitation merely recites “apply it” as to the abstract idea in a data processing unit to execute a data calculation instruction, and comprises mere instructions to execute the abstract idea. Furthermore, the receiving a data calculation instruction and acquiring of a plurality of input tensors be the acquisition module merely recites an insignificant extra solution activity. For these reasons, claim 16 is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the step 2B analysis, as set forth in step 2A prong 2, the claim merely applies the abstract idea in a generically recited data processing unit and merely comprises instructions to execute the abstract idea. Furthermore the receiving a data calculation instruction and acquiring of a plurality of input tensors comprises well understood, routine, and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).I. Receiving or transmitting data over a network. For these reasons claim 17 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome respective rejections under 35 USC 101, and 35 USC 112(b).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. Applicant claims methods and an apparatus related to data processing, wherein the method as in claim 1 comprises:
acquiring a plurality of input tensors as input parameters for a calculation process, wherein the plurality of input tensors are of a first accuracy type;
for each of the input tensors, using M input sub-tensors that are combined to represent the input tensors, wherein the M input sub-tensors have at least two accuracy types, the at least two accuracy types and the first accuracy type are different from each other, and M is an integer greater than 1;
for each of the input tensors, replacing the input tensors with the combined M input sub-tensors, and performing the calculation process to obtain a calculation result.
The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is the limitations in combination with the remaining limitations wherein the M input sub-tensors have at least two accuracy types. Prior art was found with respect to generating input sub-tensors that represent the input tensor, and wherein the sub-tensor has accuracy types different than the input tensor accuracy type, but prior art was not found with respect to the sub tensors themselves having at least two accuracy types.
US 20200210839 A1 Lo et al., (hereinafter “Lo”) discloses apparatus for a neural network using quantized precision data formats (abstract). Lo further discloses input tensors for the neural network in normal floating point such as 32 but or 16 bit floating point converted to quantized precision block floating point, wherein the block floating point mantissa only comprises 4 bits (fig 3, [0075-0077],[0086]). Lo does not, however, teach or suggest wherein the block floating point mantissas have at least to accuracy types such that the M input sub-tensors have at least two accuracy types.
US 2023020641 A1 Ma et al., (hereinafter “Ma”) discloses a deep learning acceleration device with mixed precision for matrix multiplication (abstract). Ma further discloses an input data segment having a bit length of 256 bits divided into 16 segments of 16 bits per segment ([0063]). Ma further discloses a first input word length of 16 bits and dividing the input to a higher and lower half of two 8 bit words (fig 4A, [0071]). Ma does not, however, teach or suggest wherein the input is divided into two accuracy types have at least to accuracy types such that the M input sub-tensors have at least two accuracy types.
US 20190042244 A1 Henry et al., (hereinafter “Henry”) discloses a processor comprising operands of floating point format including converting each operand into a plurality of lower precision operands (abstract, fig 1,fig 4). Henry does not, however, teach or suggest wherein the converted operands have a plurality of accuracy types such that the M input sub-tensors have at least two accuracy types.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY E LAROCQUE whose telephone number is (469)295-9289. The examiner can normally be reached on 10:00am - 1200pm, 2:00pm - 8pm ET M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Andrew Caldwell can be reached on 571-272-3702. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMILY E LAROCQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2182
Prosecution Insights