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 .
Response to Arguments
Specification. The objections to the Specification and Abstract are withdrawn based on amendments to the abstract and the specification.
Claim Objections. The objections to the claims are withdrawn based on amendments to claims.
35 USC 101.
Applicant assets that the limitation “encoding the new matrices W2 and x2 in hardware with increased resilience to reduced precision in place of the weight matrix W and the input vector value x” requires a physical object such as a computer or processor to define two new matrixes and encode in hardware the new matrices with increased resilience to reduced precision such that the encoding in the conductance values of analog non-volatile resistive memories (hardware). See [0031]. Applicant asserts this results in the claim being inextricably tied to a machine, not representing a mathematical concept (remarks p. 9 – 10 top).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, analog non-volatile resistive memories is unclaimed in claim 1 (or claim 11, or claim 20). Second the claim merely generally links the mathematical concepts to generically recited hardware. Third any purported increased resilience to reduced precision is a direct result of the mathematical concepts, not the hardware or processor itself.
Applicant further asserts that the claims integrate into a practical application by achieving a concrete technological improvement in the field of analog-AI computation operation as cited in the specification [0032], [0033], [0035], [0036]. Applicant supports this assertion in addition to the cited specification paragraphs asserting that the specification describes a practical implementation and how, computational load on a processor is reduced and resilience to noise and computation accuracy is improved (Remarks pl 10-11 middle).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Any purported improvement is a direct result of the mathematical concepts, not a result of an improvement in the technology per se. The mathematical concepts are executed in generally linked, generically recited hardware. Furthermore dependent claim elements reciting encoding in analog hardware, continue to be merely generically recited in a particular technological environment, and wherein it is the mathematical concepts that result in the purported improvement and not the analog hardware. “It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology” (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). See also MPEP 2106.05(a). "The judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement".
Applicant further asserts that the ordered combination of elements including defining two new matrices based on the multiplication of a matrix with its pseudoinverse and input vector value with the matrix and thus, encoding the new matrices with increased resilience to reduced precision in place of the weights and input vector value amounts to significantly more than applying an abstract idea on a generic computer (Remarks p. 11 bottom).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, what Applicant points to as the ordered combination is the mathematical concept without which all that remains is generically recited computing elements and hardware.
Applicant further asserts that because there is no prior art disclosed, the claims embody an inventive concept (Remarks p. 11 bottom).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The inquiry into prior art and the inquiry as to subject matter eligibility are distinctly different. Furthermore the reasons for indicating allowable subject matter are with respect to the mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.05.I. The 'inventive concept cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law or nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding treatment of claims, apparatus claims 11-19 will be addressed first followed by method claims 1-10, and the non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim 20.
Regarding claim 11, under the Alice framework Step 2A prong 1, the claim recites Mathematical concepts. The claim recites mathematical calculations, and mathematical relationships for matrix calculations. Specifically, the claim recites the following:
a multiply-and-accumulate (MAC) operation,
providing a matrix M and its pseudoinverse M-1;
multiplying weights W with the pseudoinverse M-1 and an input vector value x with the matrix M;
defining two new matrices W2 and x2 based on the multiplying of the weights W with the pseudoinverse M-1 and the input vector value x with the matrix M; and
encoding the new matrices W2 and x2 in place of the weights W and the input vector value x.
See, e.g., fig 3. The claim recites in words the calculation of equation 300. For these reasons, the claim recites mathematical calculations and mathematical relationships.
Under the Alice framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, additional elements not reciting mathematical calculations and mathematical relationships thereof include: a computing device configured to be resilient to a reduced precision of weights and inputs in, the computing device comprising: a processor; a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing instructions to cause the processor to perform acts, including encoding in hardware. These additional elements do no more than generally link the additional elements to the mathematical calculations in a manner that in effect merely recites “apply it” in a computer computing device to the math, or recite mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, including encoding weights in hardware. Furthermore, the configuration to be resilient to a reduced precision of weights and inputs in a MAC operation, and the increased resilience to reduce precision merely recite an intended result that flows directly from the mathematical concepts, and not as a result of any additional element or combination of additional elements. For this reason the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Moreover, under the Alice Framework Step 2B analysis, the claim, considered individually and as an ordered combination does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed in the Step 2A prong 2 analysis, the claim merely generally links the additional elements, “apply it” to the math, and merely recite an intended result of the math. For these reasons claim 11 elements considered individually and as an ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 12-19 are rejected for at least the reasons cited with respect to the claim 11 analysis.
Under the Step 2A prong 1 analysis, claims 12-14, and 16-18 merely further mathematically limit the claim 11 mathematical elements recited. Claims 12-14, and 16-18 contain no further additional elements that would require further consideration under Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B.
Under the step 2A prong 1 analysis, claim 15 further mathematically limits claim 11 mathematical elements recited. Under the step 2A prong 2 analysis, and step 2B analysis the claim recites the following further additional element: encoding W2 in analog hardware. This limitation is merely generically recited in a manner that does not specifically limit the computing device beyond a mere generally linking to a particular technological environment. For these reasons claim 15 is neither integrated into a practical application, nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the step 2A prong 1 analysis, claim 19 further mathematically limits claim 11 mathematical elements recited. Under the step 2A prong 2 analysis, and step 2B analysis the claim recites the following further additional element: encoding W2 and M in analog hardware. This limitation is merely generically recited in a manner that does not specifically limit the computing device beyond a mere generally linking to a particular technological environment. For these reasons claim 19 is neither integrated into a practical application, nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1-7, and 10 are directed to a method that would be practiced by the apparatus of claims 11-16, and 18-19 respectively. All steps performed in the method of claims 1-7, and 10 would be practiced by the apparatus of claims 11-16, and 18-19 respectively as configured. The claim 11-16, and 18-19 analysis applies equally to claims 1-7, and 10 respectively.
Claims 8-9 are rejected for at least the reasons cited with respect to the claim 7 analysis. Under the Step 2A prong 1 analysis, claims 8-9 merely further mathematically limit the claim 7 mathematical elements recited. Claims 8-9 contain no further additional elements that would require further consideration under Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B.
Claim 20 is directed to non-transitory computer readable storage medium tangibly embodying a computer readable program code having computer readable instructions, that would execute the steps of claim 11 as configured. The analysis with respect to claim 11 applies equally to claim 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
For the reasons set forth in the office action dated 05/13/26, claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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