DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/16/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 6/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicants’ arguments regarding the rejection of claims under 35 USC
101 (see pages 10-13 of Applicants’ remarks), the Applicants should please see the rejection below for clarification as it will substantially duplicate any response to the arguments in this section. However, the newly added limitation of “generating, by the computing system and based at least in part on the DBSS, a configuration file that maps the plurality of operators of the application model to hardware resources of a reconfigurable processor and that configures the reconfigurable processor to execute the application model” can be performed by a human with the aid of pen and paper by planning out and writing down the text and/or code of the configuration file and, as such, still falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Also, the Applicants should also please note that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, which do not provide a specific improvement over prior systems based on the consideration of the claims as a whole. Therefore, the claimed invention is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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 therefore, 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. The analysis specific to Claim 1 is being presented below. However, the Applicants should please note that the analysis for claims 9 and 13 is similar to that of claim 1 and therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 1 recites:
A method, the method comprising:
generating, by a computing system, a dimension-based search space (DBSS) comprising a plurality of Named Nodes, each of the plurality of Named Nodes corresponding to a respective operator among a plurality of operators of an application model and comprising a Named DIM, the Named DIM corresponding to a matrix, among a plurality of matrices of the application model, associated with the respective operator, the Named DIM comprising a DIM Name, among a set of DIM Names included in the DBSS, associated with a dimension of the matrix associated with the respective operator,
the DBSS comprising an application programming interface (API) usable by the computing system to determine, based on a query DIM Name, among the set of DIM Names, at least one of an attribute of an operator, among the plurality of operators of the application model, and an attribute of a matrix among the plurality of matrices of the application model;
determining, by the computing system, a first operator among operators of the application model;
determining, by the computing system, a first matrix, among the plurality of matrices of the application model, associated with the first operator;
determining, by the computing system, a first DIM Name, among the set of DIM Names, corresponding to a first dimension of the first matrix;
generating, by the computing system, in the DBSS, a first Named Node among the plurality of Named Nodes of the DBSS, the first Named Node corresponding to the first operator, the first Named Node comprising a first Named DIM corresponding to the first matrix, the first Named DIM comprising the first DIM Name, and
generating, by the computing system and based at least in part on the DBSS, a configuration file that maps the plurality of operators of the application model to hardware resources of a reconfigurable processor and that configures the reconfigurable processor to execute the application model.
Step 1:
The claim falls within a statutory category of being a method.
Step 2A – Prong 1:
The claim recites limitations of:
generating a dimension-based search space;
determining a first operator among operators of the application model;
determining a first matrix, among the plurality of matrices of the application model, associated with the first operator;
determining a first DIM Name, among the set of DIM Names, corresponding to a first dimension of the first matrix;
generating in the DBSS, a first Named Node among the plurality of Named Nodes of the DBSS, the first Named Node corresponding to the first operator, the first Named Node comprising a first Named DIM corresponding to the first matrix, the first Named DIM comprising the first DIM Name, and
generating, based at least in part on the DBSS, a configuration file that maps the plurality of operators of the application model to hardware resources of a reconfigurable processor and that configures the reconfigurable processor to execute the application model;
These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper, i.e. “determining”, and “generating” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion with the aid of pen and paper. For example, “generating a configuration file…” can be performed by a human with the aid of pen and paper by planning out and writing down the text and/or code of the configuration file. As such, these limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A- Prong 2:
The additional elements of “by a computer system”, “an application programming interface (API) usable by the computer system”, “a dimension-based search space (DBSS) comprising a plurality of Named Nodes, each of the plurality of Named Nodes corresponding to a respective operator among a plurality of operators of an application model and comprising a Named DIM, the Named DIM corresponding to a matrix, among a plurality of matrices of the application model, associated with the respective operator, the Named DIM comprising a DIM Name, among a set of DIM Names included in the DBSS, associated with a dimension of the matrix associated with the respective operator”, “a reconfigurable processor” and “hardware resources” as recited in claims 1, 9, and 13, the additional elements of “a computer readable storage medium having first program instructions embodied therewith, wherein the first program instructions are executable by at least one processor to cause the at least one processor to”, as recited in claim 9, and the additional elements of “a processor”, “a compiler”, “wherein the compiler comprises a Model Analyzer and Compiler (MAC) configured to execute on the processor”, as recited in claim 13, are all recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, The additional elements of “by a computer system”, “an application programming interface (API) usable by the computer system”, “a dimension-based search space (DBSS) comprising a plurality of Named Nodes, each of the plurality of Named Nodes corresponding to a respective operator among a plurality of operators of an application model and comprising a Named DIM, the Named DIM corresponding to a matrix, among a plurality of matrices of the application model, associated with the respective operator, the Named DIM comprising a DIM Name, among a set of DIM Names included in the DBSS, associated with a dimension of the matrix associated with the respective operator”, “a reconfigurable processor” and “hardware resources” as recited in claims 1, 9, and 13, the additional elements of “a computer readable storage medium having first program instructions embodied therewith, wherein the first program instructions are executable by at least one processor to cause the at least one processor to”, as recited in claim 9, and the additional elements of “a processor”, “a compiler”, “wherein the compiler comprises a Model Analyzer and Compiler (MAC) configured to execute on the processor”, as recited in claim 13 merely recite generic computer and computer components and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., simply adding extra-solution activity or generic computer components does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Additionally, claims 2, 10, and 14 recite “wherein the method of the computing system determining the first operator and the first matrix comprises determining, by the computing system, the first operator and the first matrix by analyzing a directed acyclic graph representing the application model.” “The method of the computing system” and “by the computing system” are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. “Determining the first operator and the first matrix comprises determining, by the computing system, the first operator and the first matrix by analyzing a directed acyclic graph representing the application model” recites additional mental processes, as “determining”, and “generating” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and are ineligible.
Additionally, claims 3, 11, and 15 recite “determining, by the computing system, a second operator among the plurality of operators of an application model; determining, by the computing system, a second matrix, among the plurality of matrices of the application model, associated with the second operator; determining, by the computing system, a second DIM Name, among the set of DIM Names, corresponding a first dimension of the second matrix; and, generating, by the computing system, in the DBSS, a second Named Node among the plurality of Named Nodes of the DBSS, the second Named Node corresponding to the second operator, the second Named Node comprising a second Named DIM corresponding to the second matrix, the second Named DIM comprising the second DIM Name” recite additional mental processes, as “determining”, and “generating” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion with the aid of pen and paper. “By the computing system” is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and are ineligible.
Additionally, claims 7, 12, and 19 recite “determining, by the computing system, using interfaces among the API of the DBSS, based on the query DIM Name, that the first operator and the second operator, among the plurality of operators of the application model, form a pipeline.” “By the computing system, using interfaces among the API of the DBSS” are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. “Determining, based on the query DIM Name, that the first operator and a second operator, among the plurality of operators of the application model, can form a pipeline” recites additional mental processes, as “determining”, and “generating” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and are ineligible.
Additionally, claim 4 recites “wherein the method of the computing system determining the second DIM Name comprises determining, by the computing system, the second DIM Name to be the first DIM Name.” “By the computing system” and “the method of the computing system” are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. “Determining, the second DIM Name to be the first DIM Name” recites additional mental processes, as “determining”, and “generating” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and are ineligible.
Additionally, claim 5 recites “determining, by the computing system, a second DIM Name, among the set of DIM Names, corresponding to a second dimension of the first matrix, the second DIM Name different from the first DIM Name.” “By the computing system” is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. “Determining, a second DIM Name, among the set of DIM Names, corresponding to a second dimension of the first matrix, the second DIM Name different from the first DIM Name” recites additional mental processes, as “determining” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and are ineligible.
Additionally, claims 6 and 18 recite “wherein the API of the DBSS comprises: a first interface to determine, based on the query DIM Name, an attribute of a second operator among the plurality of operators of the application model, the second operator associated with a matrix having a first dimension corresponding to the query DIM Name; and, a second interface to determine, based on the query DIM Name, an attribute of a second matrix among the plurality of matrices of the application model, the second matrix having a second dimension corresponding to the query DIM Name”. “The API of the DBSS”, “ a first interface” and “a second interface” are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. “Determine, based on the query DIM Name, an attribute of a second operator among the plurality of operators of the application model, the second operator associated with a matrix having a first dimension corresponding to the query DIM Name” and “determine, based on the query DIM Name, an attribute of a second matrix among the plurality of matrices of the application model, the second matrix having a second dimension corresponding to the query DIM Name” recite additional mental processes, as “determining” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and are ineligible.
Additionally, claim 8 recites “wherein the plurality of operators of the application model correspond to operators of a neural network and the plurality of matrices of the application model correspond to matrices of the neural network” recite additional mental processes, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and are ineligible.
Additionally claim 16 recites “wherein the MAC configured to execute on the processor to determine the second DIM Name comprises the MAC further configured to execute on the processor, ” which is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. “To determine the second DIM Name to be the first DIM Name” recites an additional mental process, as “determining” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and are ineligible.
Additionally, claim 17 recites “wherein the MAC is further configured to execute on the processor,” which is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. “To determine a second DIM Name, among the set of DIM Names, corresponding to a second dimension of the first matrix, the second DIM Name different from the first DIM Name” recites an additional mental process, as “determining” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, theses claim fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and are ineligible.
Additionally, claim 20 recites “wherein the plurality of operators of the application model correspond to operators of a convolutional neural network” recite additional mental processes, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENECA SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1651. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Hyung S Sough can be reached at 571-272-6799. 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.
/CHENECA SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2192
/S. Sough/SPE, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights