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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 12-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9, 13-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,676,003. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is obvious to remove limitations from a claimed invention.
18/141,272
11,676,003
1
1
Obvious to remove limitations
2
1
Obvious to remove limitations
3
-
4 generate an output tensor using the converted result in the normal-precision floating-point format.
1 operational parameter stored in memory, using the converted result in the normal precision floating-point format
Obvious to remove limitations
5
3
Obvious to remove limitations
6
4
Obvious to remove limitations
7
6
Obvious to remove limitations
8
7
Obvious to remove limitations
9
-
10
-
11
-
12
9
Obvious to remove limitations
13
13
Obvious to remove limitations
14
14
Obvious to remove limitations
15
15
Obvious to remove limitations
16
17
Obvious to remove limitations
17
13
Obvious to remove limitations
18
14
Obvious to remove limitations
19
-
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: claims 1-20 are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
With respect to claim 1:
2A Prong 1:
convert the input tensor from a normal-precision floating-point format to a quantized-precision floating-point format, the quantized-precision floating-point format being a block floating-point format, wherein a first converted input tensor portion corresponding to a first portion of the input tensor comprises a first common exponent for values in the first portion of the input tensor and a first plurality of mantissa values and a second converted tensor portion corresponding to a second portion of the input tensor comprises a second common exponent value for values in the second portion of the input tensor and a second plurality of mantissa values, wherein the first common exponent is different than the second common exponent (mental process – user can manually perform raw thinking in their head as a first stage and then using paper and pen to perform mathematical operation);
perform a tensor operation using the input tensor converted to the quantized- precision floating-point format(mental process – user can manually perform raw thinking in their head as a first stage and then using paper and pen to perform mathematical operation).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
A computing system, a hardware accelerator in communication with the computer-readable memory, the hardware accelerator (computer component is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358);
during processing using a multi-layer neural network (provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer; the NN is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the trained NN functions);
a computer-readable memory; and (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
receive an input tensor for a given layer of the multi-layer neural network (mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
A computing system, a hardware accelerator in communication with the computer-readable memory, the hardware accelerator (computer component is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358);
during processing using a multi-layer neural network (provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer; the NN is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the trained NN functions);
a computer-readable memory; and (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
receive an input tensor for a given layer of the multi-layer neural network (mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Further, the receiving/transmitting steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A Prong 2, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The receiving and/or transmitting limitations constitute extra-solution activity. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("That a computer receives and sends the information over a network-with no further specification-is not even arguably inventive."). The court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely Receiving and/or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed receiving/transmitting steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is not patent eligible.
2. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the hardware accelerator is further configured to convert a result of the tensor operation from the quantized-precision floating- point format to the normal-precision floating-point format to provide a converted result in the normal-precision floating-point format (further expand mental process, – user can manually perform raw thinking in their head as a first stage and then using paper and pen to perform mathematical operation).
3. The computing system of claim 2, wherein the hardware accelerator is further configured to perform an operation using the converted result in the normal-precision floating-point format(further expand mental process, – user can manually perform raw thinking in their head as a first stage and then using paper and pen to perform mathematical operation).
4. The computing system of claim 2, wherein the hardware accelerator is further configured to generate an output tensor using the converted result in the normal-precision floating-point format(further expand mental process – user can manually perform raw thinking in their head as a first stage and then using paper and pen to perform mathematical operation).
5. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the input tensor is a two- dimensional matrix, and the quantized-precision floating-point format is a block floating- point format where a plurality of mantissa values within a given row share a common exponent, and mantissa values in different rows have different respective exponents(further expand mental process, – user can manually perform raw thinking in their head as a first stage and then using paper and pen to perform mathematical operation).
6. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the input tensor is a convolution filter(additional element considered to be generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the quantized-precision floating-point format is a block floating-point format where a plurality of mantissa values within a spatial pixel share a common exponent(further expand mental process, – user can manually perform raw thinking in their head as a first stage and then using paper and pen to perform mathematical operation).
7. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the tensor operation is a dot product computation(further expand mental process – user can manually perform raw thinking in their head as a first stage and then using paper and pen to perform mathematical operation).
8. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the tensor operation is a convolution(further expand mental process – user can manually perform raw thinking in their head as a first stage and then using paper and pen to perform mathematical operation).
9. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the converting the input tensor from a normal-precision floating-point format to a quantized-precision floating-point format comprises: selecting a first bounding box, the first bounding box defining the first portion of the input tensor; and selecting a second bounding box, the second bounding box defining the second portion of the input tensor(further expand mental process, – user can manually perform raw thinking in their head as a first stage and then using paper and pen to perform mathematical operation).
10. The method of claim 9, wherein the first bounding box is a row of a matrix of the input tensor(further expand mental process, – user can manually perform raw thinking in their head as a first stage and then using paper and pen to perform mathematical operation).
11. The method of claim 9, wherein the first bounding box is a column of a matrix of the input tensor(further expand mental process, – user can manually perform raw thinking in their head as a first stage and then using paper and pen to perform mathematical operation).
Claims 12, 16
2A Prong 1:
converting an input tensor for a given layer of a multi-layer neural network from a normal-precision floating-point format to converted values represented in a block floating- point format by (1) for a first portion on the input tensor, selecting a first bounding box including a first set of values expressed in the normal-precision floating-point format and where the block floating-point format uses a first common exponent for converted values of the first set of values (mental process – user can manually perform raw thinking in their head as a first stage and then using paper and pen to perform mathematical operation);
and (2) for a second portion of the input tensor, selecting a second bounding box comprising a second set of values expressed in the normal-precision floating point format and where the block-floating point format uses a second common exponent for converted values of the second set of values, where the second set of values is different from the first set of values and the second common exponent is different from the first common exponent(mental process – user can manually perform raw thinking in their head as a first stage and then using paper and pen to perform mathematical operation);
performing a tensor operation using the converted values in the input tensor converted to the block floating-point format (mental process – user can manually perform raw thinking in their head as a first stage and then using paper and pen to perform mathematical operation);
converting a result of the tensor operation from the block floating-point format to the normal-precision floating-point format; and using the converted result in the normal-precision floating-point format to generate an output tensor of the layer of [the neural network], where the output tensor is in normal- precision floating-point format(mental process – user can manually perform raw thinking in their head as a first stage and then using paper and pen to perform mathematical operation).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
A computing system (computer component is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358);
the neural network (provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer; the NN is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the trained NN functions);
generate an output (mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
A computing system (computer component is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358);
the neural network (provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer; the NN is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the trained NN functions);
generate an output (mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Further, the receiving/transmitting steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A Prong 2, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The receiving and/or transmitting limitations constitute extra-solution activity. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("That a computer receives and sends the information over a network-with no further specification-is not even arguably inventive."). The court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely Receiving and/or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed receiving/transmitting steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is not patent eligible.
13. The method of claim 12, wherein the first bounding box is a row of a matrix of the input tensor(further expand mental process – user can manually perform raw thinking in their head as a first stage and then using paper and pen to perform mathematical operation).
14. The method of claim 12, wherein the first bounding box is a column of a matrix of the input tensor(further expand mental process, – user can manually perform raw thinking in their head as a first stage and then using paper and pen to perform mathematical operation).
15. The method of claim 12, wherein converting the input tensor for the given layer from the normal-precision floating-point format to the block floating-point format comprises: scaling mantissa values of elements of the input tensor so that integer portions of the scaled mantissas have a selected number of bits for the block floating-point format; removing fractional bits from the scaled integer portions of the mantissas; and rounding the mantissas to produce block floating-point values(further expand mental process – user can manually perform raw thinking in their head as a first stage and then using paper and pen to perform mathematical operation).
17. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 16, wherein the first bounding box is a row of a matrix of the input tensor(further expand mental process, – user can manually perform raw thinking in their head as a first stage and then using paper and pen to perform mathematical operation).
18. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 16, wherein the first bounding box is a column of a matrix of the input tensor(further expand mental process, – user can manually perform raw thinking in their head as a first stage and then using paper and pen to perform mathematical operation).
19. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 16, wherein the input tensor is a two-dimensional matrix, and in the block floating-point format a plurality of mantissa values within a given row share a common exponent, and mantissa values in different rows have different respective exponents(further expand mental process, – user can manually perform raw thinking in their head as a first stage and then using paper and pen to perform mathematical operation).
20. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 16, wherein the input tensor is a convolution filter, and the block floating-point format is a block floating point format where a plurality of mantissa values within a spatial pixel share a common exponent(further expand mental process, – user can manually perform raw thinking in their head as a first stage and then using paper and pen to perform mathematical operation).
No related art has been cited
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R VINCENT whose telephone number is (571)272-3080. The examiner can normally be reached ~Mon-Fri 12-8:30.
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, Alexey Shmatov can be reached at 5712703428. 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.
/DAVID R VINCENT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2123
Prosecution Insights