The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 20 January 2026. THIS ACTION IS NON-FINAL.
In response to the restriction requirement, Applicant’s election without traverse of the instant application in the reply filed on 20 January 2026 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 21-25 are cancelled.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
There is no art rejection for claims 1-20.
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.
Judicial Exception
Claims 1-20 of the claimed invention are directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
(Independent Claims) With regards to claim 1 / 11, the claim recites a method / product, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites “determining whether the data block is in a halo tensor of a convolution in a deep neural network (DNN), wherein the halo tensor comprises activations in an input tensor of the convolution, the halo tensor is to be transferred from the first compute block to a second compute block, and the first compute block and the second compute block are to perform multiply-accumulate (MAC) operations on the activations; in response to determining that the data block is in the halo tensor, generating a remote address of the data block based on the local address” (mental process and/or math concept),
as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “determining”, “generating”, in the limitation citied above encompasses evaluating matrix data element and determining computing resource for calculating the data element, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements: (a) of generic computer elements (like computer, computer-readable media storing instructions executable by computer), which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)); (b) “receiving a memory transaction, wherein the memory transaction comprising a data block computed by a first compute block, and the data block is stored at a local address in a memory in the first compute block”, “writing the data block into a second memory in the second compute block based on the remote address”, these steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of data input/output as described in MPEP.2106.05(g). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of generic computer element merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional element of “receiving a memory transaction, wherein the memory transaction comprising a data block computed by a first compute block, and the data block is stored at a local address in a memory in the first compute block”, “writing the data block into a second memory in the second compute block based on the remote address”, is insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
(Dependent claims)
Claims 2-10 / 12-20 are dependent on claim 1 / 11 and include all the limitations of claim 1 / 11. Therefore, claims 2-10 / 12-20 recite the same abstract ideas.
With regards to claim 2 / 12, the claim recites additional element of “… writing the data block into a third memory in the third compute block based on the remote address”, these steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of data input/output as described in MPEP.2106.05(g). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, The additional element of ““… writing the data block into a third memory in the third compute block based on the remote address”, is insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g). the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 3 / 13, the claim recites limitation of “forming a data package including bits in the remote address and one or more additional bits, wherein the one or more additional bits identify the second compute block and the third compute block”, which is further process of matrix data element processing, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim recites additional element of “… the data block is written into the second memory and the third memory based on the data package”, these steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of data input/output as described in MPEP.2106.05(g). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “… the data block is written into the second memory and the third memory based on the data package”, is insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g). the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 4 / 14, the claim recites limitation of “the memory transaction has metadata indicating a position of the data block in the input tensor, the halo tensor has metadata indicating boundaries of the halo tensor within the input tensor, and determining whether the data block is in a halo tensor comprising determining whether the position of the data block is inside the boundaries”, which is further process of matrix data element processing, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 5 /15, the claim recites limitation of “accumulating the local address with an address offset, wherein the address offset is specified in metadata of the halo tensor”, which is further process of matrix data element processing, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 6 / 16, the claim recites limitation of “selecting an address offset from an activation address offset and a sparsity address offset in the metadata of the halo tensor based on metadata of the memory transaction, wherein the metadata of the memory transaction indicates whether the data block comprises activation data or sparsity data”, which is further process of matrix data element processing, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 7 / 17, the claim recites limitation of “partitioning the memory transaction into two memory transactions, wherein the data block is written into the second memory through the two memory transactions”, which is further process of matrix data element processing, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 8 / 18, the claim recites limitation of “the data block is in a first tensor computed by the first compute block for a hidden layer in the DNN, a second tensor is computed by the second compute block for the hidden layer, and generating the remote address of the data block based on the local address comprises: determining whether a width of the first tensor equals a width of the second tensor, in response to determining that the width of the first tensor does not equal the width of the second tensor, determining an address adjustment factor based on the width of the first tensor and the width of the second tensor, and generating the remote address further based on the address adjustment factor”, which is further process of matrix data element processing, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 9 / 19, the claim recites limitation of “wherein the first compute block receives an additional halo tensor of the convolution from the second compute block, and the first compute block and the second compute block perform MAC operations on activations in the additional halo tensor”, which is further process of matrix data element processing, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 10 / 20, the claim recites limitation of “wherein the data block is computed by the first compute block for a first convolutional layer in the DNN, the convolution is for a second convolutional layer in the DNN, and the second convolutional layer is subsequent to the first convolutional layer in the DNN”, which is further process of matrix data element processing, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter Analysis
Claims 1-20 include allowable subject matter since when reading the claims in light of the specification, as per, MPEP §2111.01 or Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Industries Inc., 199F.3d 1295, 1301, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1069, 1069 (Fed.Cir. 1999), none of the references of record alone or in combination disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in claims 1-20.
In interpreting the claims, in light of the specification filed on 20 January 2026, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior arts of record.
Regarding the amended independent claim 1, the primary reason for the allowance is the inclusion of the following specific elements, in combination with the other elements cited, which is not found in the prior art of record: “… determining whether the data block is in a halo tensor of a convolution in a deep neural network (DNN), wherein the halo tensor comprises activations in an input tensor of the convolution, the halo tensor is to be transferred from the first compute block to a second compute block, and the first compute block and the second compute block are to perform multiply-accumulate (MAC) operations on the activations ;in response to determining that the data block is in the halo tensor, generating a remote address of the data block based on the local address …” in combination with other limitations in the claim.
None of the cited prior art references, singly or in combination, fully teaches all limitations of independent claim 1.
Claim 11 is substantially similar to claim 1. The arguments as given above for claim 1, are applied, mutatis mutandis, to claim 11, therefore the allowance reasoning of claim 1 are applied accordingly.
Regarding the dependent claims, which include all the limitations of the independent claims, are also allowed.
The followings are references close to the invention claimed:
Narayanaswami et al., US-PGPUB NO.20210326683A1 [hereafter Narayanaswami] teaches data partition for HW acceleration of NN processing. However Narayanaswami does not teach the specific claimed process of halo tensor data block identification, remote address calculation based on local address and moving the data block based on the remote address.
Nair et al., US-PATENT NO.11501147B1 [hereafter Nair] teaches identification of patterns in sparse matrix data storage. However Nair does not teach the specific claimed process of halo tensor data block identification, remote address calculation based on local address and moving the data block based on the remote address.
Das et al., US-PATENT NO.11373266B2 [hereafter Nair] teaches halo data in computer storage. However Das does not teach the specific claimed process of halo tensor data block identification, remote address calculation based on local address and moving the data block based on the remote address.
Zhang, et al. “Cambricon-X: An Accelerator for sparse neural networks”, 2016 49th IEEE/ACM international symposium on microarchitecture (MICRO) 15-19 October 2016 [hereafter Zhang] teaches processing of sparse matrix in NN accelerator. However Zhang does not teach the specific claimed process of halo tensor data block identification, remote address calculation based on local address and moving the data block based on the remote address.
Parashar, et al. “SCNN: an accelerator for compressed-sparse convolutional neural networks”, ISCA’17, June 24-28, 2017 [hereafter Parashar] teaches moving data in multiple processing elements to accelerate NN computation. However Parashar does not teach the specific claimed process of halo tensor data block identification, remote address calculation based on local address and moving the data block based on the remote address.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSU-CHANG LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3567. The fax number is 571-273-3567.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Omar Fernandez Rivas, can be reached 571-272-2589.
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.
/TSU-CHANG LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128