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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0058] recites "...generates configuration data from to configure...", this appears to be a typographical error and should possibly recite "...generates configuration data to configure a processor...". Paragraph [0084] recites "...one compiler implementation divides the dataflow graph in stages...", this appears to be a typographical error and should possibly recite "...one compiler implementation divides the dataflow graph into stages...". Paragraph [00103] recites "The terminal values specifies...", this appears to be a typographical error and should potentially recite "The terminal values specify...". Paragraph [00107] recites "... the configuration data determine initial values...", this appears to be a typographical error and should possibly recite "... the configuration data determines initial values...". Paragraph [00115] recites "...and the gathered vectors of inputs pixels...", this appears to be a typographical error and should possibly recite "...and the gathered vectors of input pixels...". Paragraph [00190] recites "...a host img_ inaddr to the generate the host_tile_inaddr...", this appears to be a typographical error and should possibly recite "...a host img_ inaddr to generate the host_tile_inaddr...". 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 1-20 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 recites “…the N dimensions…” in line 3, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, claim 1 recites “…. the output image…” in line 5, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Additionally, claim 1 recites “…the N stride values…” in line 7, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Moreover, claim 1 recites “…the output tiles…” in line 7, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Furthermore, claim 1 recites “…the coordinates…” in lines 9-10, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. In addition, claim 1 recites “…the affine transform matrix…” in line 11, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Furthermore, claim 1 recites “…the input image…” in line 13, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Additionally, claim 1 recites “…the input tile…” in line 15, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claims 2-11 inherit the same deficiency as claim 1 based on dependence.
Claim 4 recites “…the vectors of local output pixel coordinates…” in lines 27-28, this may possibly lack antecedent basis as it is unclear if this is referring to the vectors that are local to the output tile of the output pixels mentioned in lines 25-26.
Claim 5 recites “…the vectors of global output pixel coordinates…” in line 32, this may possibly lack antecedent basis as it is unclear if it is referring to the vectors that are global to the output image of the output pixels mentioned in claim 4. Furthermore, claim 5 recites “…the vectors of global input pixel coordinates…” in line 34, this may possibly lack antecedent basis as it is unclear if it is referring to the vectors of coordinates global to the input image of input pixels of the corresponding input tile mentioned in lines 32-33.
Claim 6 recites “…the vectors of local input pixel coordinates…” in line 39, this may possibly lack antecedent basis as it is unclear if it is referring to the vectors of coordinates that are local to the input tile of the input pixels mentioned in claim 5 line 35.
Claim 7 recites “…the calculated vectors…” in line 43, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 7 also recites “…the input pixel values…” in line 44, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 10 recites “…the maximum value…” in lines 58-59, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 12 recites “…the N dimensions…” in line 65, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, claim 1 recites “…. the output image…” in line 68, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Additionally, claim 1 recites “…the N stride values…” in lines 69-70, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Moreover, claim 1 recites “…the output tiles…” in line 71, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Furthermore, claim 1 recites “…the coordinates…” in line 73, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. In addition, claim 1 recites “…the affine transform matrix…” in line 74, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Furthermore, claim 1 recites “…the input image…” in line 76, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Additionally, claim 1 recites “…the input tile…” in line 78, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claims 13-19 inherit the same deficiency as claim 12 based on dependence.
Claim 15 recites “…the vectors of local output pixel coordinates…” in line 92, this may possibly lack antecedent basis as it is unclear if this is referring to the vectors that are local to the output tile of the output pixels mentioned in lines 89-90.
Claim 16 recites “…the vectors of global output pixel coordinates…” in line 96, this may possibly lack antecedent basis as it is unclear if it is referring to the vectors that are global to the output image of the output pixels mentioned in claim 15 line 91. Furthermore, claim 16 recites “…the vectors of global input pixel coordinates…” in line 99, this may possibly lack antecedent basis as it is unclear if it is referring to the vectors of coordinates global to the input image of input pixels of the corresponding input tile mentioned in line 97.
Claim 17 recites “…the vectors of local input pixel coordinates…” in line 104, this may possibly lack antecedent basis as it is unclear if it is referring to the vectors of coordinates that are local to the input tile of the input pixels mentioned in claim 16 line 100.
Claim 18 recites “…the calculated vectors…” in line 108, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 18 also recites “…the input pixel values…” in line 109, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 20 recites “…the N dimensions…” in lines 117-118, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Furthermore, claim 20 recites “…the output image…” in line 119, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 20 also recites “…the N stride values…” in line 121, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Additionally, claim 20 recites “…the output tiles…” in line 121, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Moreover, claim 20 recites “…the N output tile…” in line 123, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 20 also recites “…the coordinates…” in lines 123-124, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. In addition, claim 20 recites “…the affine transform matrix…” in line 125, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Furthermore, claim 20 recites “…the input image…” in line 127, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 20 recites “…the input tile…” in line 129, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
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 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 claims 1-11, under the Alice framework Step 2A Prong 1, the claims recite Mathematical concepts and mental steps. The claim recites mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations related to matrix affine transforms, calculating coordinates, and counting. Specifically, the claims recite the following:
“…perform an N-dimensional affine transform specified by a matrix…”
“…iterate over the output image by N respective stride values to generate base pixel coordinates of N-dimensional output tiles…”
“…calculate the coordinates of corner pixels of the output tile…”
“… apply the affine transform matrix to coordinates of corner pixels of the output tile…”
“…determine coordinates of a base pixel of a corresponding N-dimensional input tile…”
“…iterate over the output tile to generate vectors of coordinates that are local to the output tile of the output pixels…”
“… calculate vectors of coordinates that are global to the output image of the output pixels…”
“…calculate, using the vectors of local input pixel coordinates and inner N-1 input tile dimension lengths of the input tiles, vectors of PMU addresses of the input pixels.”
“…iterate over the output tile…”
“…counts autonomously during performance of the N-dimensional affine transform…”
Under the Alice framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, claims 1-11 recite the following additional elements: configuration stores loadable with configuration data to statically reconfigure the statically reconfigurable data flow architecture processor, loading and re-loading the configuration stores with the configuration data, pattern memory units configured to read values of the input pixels, and writing vectors of the input pixel values to one or more pattern memory units, and loading the input tiles from a host memory. These additional elements do no more than generally link the mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations to a computer in a manner that in effect merely recites “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Under the Alice framework Step 2B analysis, claims 1-11, considered individually and as an ordered combination do 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 claims merely generally link the additional elements to a computer. Furthermore, loading, writing, and reading comprise well understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d) ii. For these reasons claims 1-11 elements considered individually and as an ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claims 12-19, under the Alice framework Step 2A Prong 1, the claims recite Mathematical concepts and mental steps. The claim recites mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations related to matrix affine transforms, calculating coordinates, and counting. Specifically, the claims recite the following:
“…performing an N-dimensional affine transform…”
“…iterating, by the N counters, over the output image…”
“… generate base pixel coordinates…”
“…calculate the coordinates of corner pixels…”
“…applying the affine transform matrix to coordinates of corner pixels…”
“…determine coordinates of a base pixel of a corresponding N-dimensional input tile…”
“…iterating over the output tile to generate vectors of coordinates…”
“…calculating vectors of coordinates that are global to the output image…”
“…calculate vectors of coordinates that are local to the input tile…”
“…calculating, using the vectors of local input pixel coordinates and inner N-1 input tile dimension lengths of the input tiles, vectors of PMU addresses of the input pixels.”
Under the Alice framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, claims 12-19 recite the following additional elements: a computer implemented method to statically reconfigure a statically reconfigurable dataflow architecture processor, loading the pattern memory units, loading configuration stores with data, pattern memory units configured to read values of the input pixels, writing vectors of the input pixel values to one or more pattern memory units, and statically reconfiguring input tile dimension lengths. These additional elements do no more than generally link the mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations to a computer in a manner that in effect merely recites “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Under the Alice framework Step 2B analysis, claims 12-19, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do 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 claims merely generally link the additional elements to a computer. Furthermore, loading, writing, and reading comprise well understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d) ii. For these reasons claims 12-19 elements considered individually and as an ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 20, under the Alice framework Step 2A Prong 1, the claims recite Mathematical concepts and mental steps. The claim recites mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations related to matrix affine transforms, calculating coordinates, and counting. Specifically, the claims recite the following:
“… perform an N-dimensional affine transform…”
“…iterate over the output image…”
“…generate base pixel coordinates…”
“…calculate the coordinates…”
“… apply the affine transform matrix…”
“…determine coordinates of a base pixel…”
Under the Alice framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, claims 20 recites the following additional element: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with instructions stored within it to configure a statically reconfigurable dataflow architecture processor. This additional element does no more than generally link the mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations to a computer in a manner that in effect merely recites “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Under the Alice framework Step 2B analysis, claim 20, 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 element to a computer. Furthermore, a computer storage medium with stored instructions to configure a processor comprises a well understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d) ii. For these reasons the element in claim 20 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK HUTCHINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7192. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00 am - 5:00 pm) 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. /FRANK HUTCHINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2182
.
/ANDREW CALDWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182
Prosecution Insights