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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a hardware accelerator for certainty-based classification networks,
Under Prong One of Step 2A of the USPTO current eligibility guidance (MPEP 2106), the claim recites such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula, such as determine a remainder portion of the integer operand p based on a range reduction operation (see at least [0106] describes step 520 determining a remainder portion includes determining a highest set bit, e, and determining the reminder portion of the integer operand p by subtracting 2^e from the integer operand p); determine a scaled integer operand based on the integer operand p (see [0107] describes such determination includes performing left shift operation and multiplication to generate a scaled integer operand); determine an index for a data structure based on the remainder portion of the integer operand p and a parameter N (see [0108] describes step for determining an index includes performing left shift operation, subtraction to generate i3 as index); generate a scaled entropy value by adding the data structure value to the scaled integer operand (see [0110] describes step of generating includes addition operation); determine an entropy value based on the scaled entropy value (see [0111] describes an entropy value is determined by performing right shift operation and addition operation); and determine a binary certainty value for a predicted class based on the entropy value ([0074] describes the step of determining a binary certainty by comparing the entropy with a predetermined threshold. Thus, such determination is merely a mathematical operation of comparing). Therefore, the claim includes limitations that fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim additionally recites a hardware accelerator comprising a processor. However, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as computer components performing computer functions of processing data. Furthermore, the claim recites a step of receiving an integer operand p and outputting the entropy value to a main classifier, such steps are considered as insignificant extra/post solution activities (e.g., mere data gathering). Moreover, the limitation of look up a data structure value in the data structure based on the index is also considered as insignificant extra solution activity because such limitation is well known. Such additional elements fail to provide a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception, and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computer components. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, as discussed with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, the additional elements in the claim amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computer components. The same conclusion is reached in step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at step 2A or provide an inventive concept that is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception. The step of receiving the integer operand p and outputting the entropy value, and look up a data structure value in the data structure based on the index are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A, and are determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) section (I), indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network, is well-understood, routing, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner and Hennessy, John L., et al. Computer Architecture : A Quantitative Approach, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2014 page 464 figure 5.35 describes a lookup table that looks up a value based on index. Thus, the additional elements fail to ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 2 further recites the data structure is a look-up table. Such limitation is recited at a high level of generality, e.g., computer component performing computer function, and as explained above, the step of looking up data value within the look up table based on index value is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity under step 2A prong two and determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional under step 2B. Thus, the claim does not recite additional element alone or in combinations that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or provide an inventive concept that is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3 further recites generate a pairwise entropy value by adding an additional entropy value from an adjacent vector lane to the entropy value; and output the pairwise entropy value. Such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula including performing addition and outputting the result. The claim does not recite additional element alone or in combinations that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or provide an inventive concept that is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4 further recites even numbered vector lanes and odd numbered vector lanes are processed alternately. Such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula (merely describes processing even and odd number vector lanes). The claim does not recite additional element alone or in combinations that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or provide an inventive concept that is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5 further recites the range reduction operation includes: determine a highest set bit e of the integer operand p, where e is the highest bit position, from left to right, of the first bit set to 1; and determine the remainder portion of the integer operand p by subtracting 2^e from the integer operand p. such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula (determining highest set of bit e and subtracting). The claim does not recite additional element alone or in combinations that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or provide an inventive concept that is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6 further recites m is equal to the integer operand p divided by 2^e and the data structure approximates the relationship m-log2(m); the data structure has a number of values n; the parameter N is equal to log2(n); and said determine the index includes: determine a first shift value by subtracting the highest set bit e from the parameter N, and perform a left shift operation, using the first shift value, on the remainder portion of the integer operand p to generate the index. Such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula (merely describes the size of the look up table, and performing subtracting and left shifting operation). the claim does not recite additional element alone or in combinations that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or provide an inventive concept that is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7 further recites when the first shift value is greater than or equal to zero, perform the left shift operation; and when the first shift value is less than zero, perform a right shift operation, using an absolute value of the first shift value, on the remainder portion of the integer operand p to generate the index. Such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula (merely describes the shifting operation based on the shifting value). The claim does not recite additional element alone or in combinations that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or provide an inventive concept that is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8 further recites said determine the scaled integer operand includes: determine a second shift value by subtracting the highest set bit e from a predetermined integer value; perform a left shift operation, using the second shift value, on the integer operand to generate an initial scaled integer operand; and generate the scaled integer operand by multiplying the initial scaled integer operand and the highest set bit e. Such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula (further describes the mathematical operation for determining the scaled integer operand). The claim does not recite additional element alone or in combinations that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or provide an inventive concept that is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9 further recites said determine the entropy value includes perform a right shift operation, using the second shift value, on the scaled entropy value to generate the entropy value. Such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula, (performing shifting operation). The claim does not recite additional element alone or in combinations that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or provide an inventive concept that is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10 further recites the integer operand p is an 8-bit value, the highest set bit e is a 3-bit value, the data structure value is an 8 bit value, the scaled integer operand p is a 16-bit value, and the entropy value is a 16-bit value. Such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula (merely describes the data size of the variables). The claim does not recite additional element alone or in combinations that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or provide an inventive concept that is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 11-20 recite method claims that would be practiced by the apparatus claims 1-10. Thus, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1 and 11, the prior art of records does not teach or suggest a combination of limitations, including determine a remainder portion of the integer operand p based on a range reduction operation; determine a scaled integer operand based on the integer operand p; determine an index for a data structure based on the remainder portion of the integer operand p and a parameter N associated with the data structure; look up a data structure value in the data structure based on the index; generate a scaled entropy value by adding the data structure value to the scaled integer operand; determine an entropy value based on the scaled entropy value; and output the entropy value to a main classifier configured to determine a binary certainty value for a predicted class based on the entropy value.
Liu - US 20180144241 teaches a method for training a neuron network includes determining an uncertainty measure of the features and provide a score based on the uncertainty measure. [0041] describes the uncertainty of the class of the input image can be measured by an entropy function H(x), wherein entropy function H(x) is calculated based on a multiplication of integer operand p and a binary logarithmic of the integer operand p as illustrated in figure 1. However, Liu does not teach or suggest calculating the entropy function H(x) using the steps described above.
Bjorgvinsdottir - US 20180276845 teaches a method and system implementing technique for classifying an object occurring in a sequence of images. The set of image crops is fed to an artificial neural network trained for classifying an object. The artificial network determines a classification result for each image crop. A quality measure of each classification result is determined based on one or more of: a confidence measure of a classification vector output from the artificial neural network, and a resolution of the image crop.[0017] describes the confidence measure of the classification vector is determined by calculating an entropy for the classification vector. Entropy calculations (i.e. measure of uncertainty for a certain outcome) are also well known to those having ordinary skill in the art, and only require lightweight calculations, making them suitable for implementation on an embedded device. However, Bjorgvinsdottir does not teach or suggest calculating the entropy calculations using the steps described above.
Starzyk - NPL An Entropy-based Learning Hardware Organizatoin Using FPGA (IDS filed on 01/19/2023) teaches a neural network model with entropy-based evaluator including calculating entropy based information index using lookup table to lookup logarithmic functions as described in section II, wherein a 5 bit width input pointer is used to address the Plog(P) LUT. Figure 4 illustrates an entropy calculating unit having adders and multipliers to calculate entropy. However, Starzyk does not teach or suggest calculating the entropy calculations using the steps described above.
Riemenschneider- US 11475280 teaches a system for classifying data objects to train a neural network, wherein the system also calculates entropy function based on a logarithmic function of q and p according to equation 3 as described in column 5. However, Riemenschneider does not teach or suggest calculating the entropy calculations using the steps described above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUY DUONG whose telephone number is (571)-272-2764. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 9:00AM - 5:30PM ET.
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 at (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 published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUY DUONG/Examiner, Art Unit 2182 (571)-272-2764
Prosecution Insights