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 .
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “a multiplier which is coupled to the corresponding channel and the input matrix”. Examiner notes that the input matrix is a data structure. It is unclear how a physical multiplier is coupled to both a physical “channel” and a digital/data structure “input matrix”, unless the multiplier is not a physical structure, which also makes it unclear as a MAC circuit should comprise of physical elements.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under the Alice Framework Step 1, claims 1-8 recites a device and, therefore, is a machine. Claims 9-16 recite a method and, therefore, is a process.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 1 recites
a storage unit which comprises a weight matrix;
a control circuit which is coupled to the storage unit and configured to re-order an arrangement order of a plurality of weights in the weight matrix according to a shape of an output matrix to determine a weight readout order of the weights, wherein the weight readout order is different from the arrangement order; and
a computing circuit which is coupled to the control circuit and configured to receive the weights based on the weight readout order, and to perform a matrix computation on the weights and an input matrix to generate a computing matrix,
wherein the control circuit performs a reshape transformation on the computing matrix to generate the output matrix, and writes the output matrix to the storage unit.
The above underlined limitations are related to organizing the data to perform matrix multiplication and reshaping operations which amount to mathematical calculations and relationships that falls under “mathematical concepts” of abstract ideas (see at least specification paragraphs 34-35 and figures 3, 4A, 4B, and 6). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, the claim recites the following additional elements: “a storage unit which comprises a weight matrix“, “a control circuit which is coupled to the storage unit and configured to”, “a computing circuit which is coupled to the control circuit and configured to receive the weights based on the weight readout order”, and “wherein the control circuit performs … and writes the output matrix to the storage unit”. However, the additional elements of a storage unit, a control circuit and a computing circuit are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for storing data; as a generic computer component for organizing data; and as a generic computer component for performing multiplication) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements of “a storage unit which comprises a weight matrix“, “a computing circuit … configured to receive the weights based on the weight readout order”, and “wherein the control circuit … writes the output matrix to the storage unit” are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a storage unit, a control circuit and a computing circuit are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for storing data; as a generic computer component for organizing data; and as a generic computer component for performing multiplication) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements of “a storage unit which comprises a weight matrix“, “a computing circuit … configured to receive the weights based on the weight readout order”, and “wherein the control circuit … writes the output matrix to the storage unit” are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) which states that the courts have recognized computer functions such as “Storing and retrieving information in memory” 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. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, Claims 2-8 recite further steps and details to organizing the data to perform matrix multiplication and reshaping operations and falls within the “mathematical Concepts” and/or “mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 2-3 are directed to transforming the data to compute the final mathematical result. The claim does not include additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea.
Claim 4 is directed to the computing circuit comprising generic multiply-accumulate circuits. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, the claim recites the following additional elements: “a plurality of multiply-accumulate (MAC) circuits which are respectively coupled to the control circuit through different corresponding channels… configured to receive the weights…”. However, the additional elements of a plurality of multiply-accumulate (MAC) circuits are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for multiplication and accumulation) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements of “a plurality of multiply-accumulate (MAC) circuits … different corresponding channels… configured to receive the weights…” are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a plurality of multiply-accumulate (MAC) circuits are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for multiplication and accumulation) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements of “a plurality of multiply-accumulate (MAC) circuits … different corresponding channels… configured to receive the weights…” are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) which states that the courts have recognized computer functions such as “Storing and retrieving information in memory” 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. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 is directed to performing a MAC computation of the weight row and input matrix of claim 4. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, the claim recites the following additional elements: “a first MAC circuit… receives a first weight row and the input matrix through a first channel, and performs a MAC operation… to generate…”. However, the additional element of a first MAC circuit is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for multiplication and accumulation) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional element of “a first MAC circuit… receives a first weight row and the input matrix through a first channel” are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a first MAC circuit is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for multiplication and accumulation) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional element of “a first MAC circuit… receives a first weight row and the input matrix through a first channel” are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) which states that the courts have recognized computer functions such as “Storing and retrieving information in memory” 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. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 is directed to the components of a MAC circuit. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, the claim recites the following additional elements: “a multiplier… coupled to the corresponding channel and the input matrix and is configured to receive… and to perform a multiplication… to generate a product value”, “a register configured to store a computing element value…” and “an adder which is coupled to the multiplier and the register, and is configured to receive… perform addition computation… generate a new computing element value, and store the new computing element value in the register”. However, the additional elements of multiplier, a register, and an adder are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for multiplication; as a generic computer component for accumulation; and as a generic computer component for addition) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements of “a multiplier… configured to receive…”, “a register configured to store…” and “an adder… store the new computing element value in the register” are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of multiplier, a register, and an adder are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for multiplication; as a generic computer component for accumulation; and as a generic computer component for addition) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements of “a multiplier… configured to receive…”, “a register configured to store…” and “an adder… store the new computing element value in the register” are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) which states that the courts have recognized computer functions such as “Storing and retrieving information in memory” 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. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 is directed to transforming the product data to compute the final mathematical result. The claim does not include additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea.
Claim 8 is directed to transforming the data to compute the final mathematical result. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, the claim recites the following additional elements: “stores the readout matrix in the storage unit”. However, the additional element of “stores the readout matrix in the storage unit” is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “stores the readout matrix in the storage unit” is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) which states that the courts have recognized computer functions such as “Storing and retrieving information in memory” 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. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 9-16 are directed to claims 1-8, respectively. A mere change in statutory class is obvious. As such the claims are rejected for the reasons given above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kenny K. Bui whose telephone number is (571)270-0604. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 3:00 pm on Monday, 8:00 am to 4:00 pm on Tuesday to Friday 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 T 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.
/KENNY K. BUI/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182 (571)270-0604
/ANDREW CALDWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182
Prosecution Insights