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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 03/03/2026. Claims 1-6 and 10-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 14 and 15 are independent claims. Claims 7-9 are canceled. This Office Action is made Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-6 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims 1, 14 and 15 are corresponding to one of four statutory categories including method, system, and method respectively under step 1. The claims 1, 14 and 15 similarly recite “ a method of processing information in an electronic apparatus, the method comprising: acquiring a neural network model; determining a reference format for conversion of the neural network model; converting the neural network model to a model of the reference format; and determining a size of input data segments for executing the model converted into the reference format in a neural processing unit (NPU), wherein when a plurality of NPUs are used for executing the model converted into the reference format, the determining of the size of input data segments comprises: partitioning input data into a plurality of data segments of a first size, based on a first method considering a number of the plurality of NPUs; determining, for each of the plurality of NPUs, a number of items of data to be processed through one calculation; determining, for each of the plurality of NPUs, an amount of time required for performing the one calculation; determining a number of the data segments of the first size allocated for each of the plurality of NPUs; based on the number of items of data to be processed through one calculation, the amount of time required for performing the one calculation, and the number of the data segments of the first size, identifying an NPU that requires a maximum amount of time for processing the allocated data segments of the first size; and determining a second method for partitioning the input data, such that a processing time for the identified NPU to process the input data is minimized, wherein the second method is a method for partitioning the input data into a plurality of data segments of a second size”.
The limitation of the claims 1, 14 and 15 of “determining a reference format for conversion of the neural network model” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine a reference format for conversion of the neural network model with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 14 and 15 of “converting the neural network model to a model of the reference format” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “converting (i.e. changing a precision format)” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may convert the precision format of the neural network model to a model of the reference formats with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 14 and 15 of “determining a size of input data segments for executing the model converted into the reference format in a neural processing unit (NPU)” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine, a size of input data segments for executing the model converted into the reference format in a neural processing unit (NPU) with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 14 and 15 of “partitioning input data into a plurality of data segments of a first size, based on a first method considering a number of the plurality of NPUs” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “partitioning (dividing/classifying)” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may partition input data into a plurality of data segments of a first size, based on a first method considering a number of the plurality of NPUs with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 14 and 15 of “determining, for each of the plurality of NPUs, a number of items of data to be processed through one calculation” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine, for each of the plurality of NPUs, a number of items of data to be processed through one calculation with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 14 and 15 of “determining, for each of the plurality of NPUs, an amount of time required for performing the one calculation” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine, for each of the plurality of NPUs, an amount of time required for performing the one calculation with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 14 and 15 of “determining a number of the data segments of the first size allocated for each of the plurality of NPUs” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine a number of the data segments of the first size allocated for each of the plurality of NPUs with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 14 and 15 of “based on the number of items of data to be processed through one calculation, the amount of time required for performing the one calculation, and the number of the data segments of the first size, identifying an NPU that requires a maximum amount of time for processing the allocated data segments of the first size” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may identify an NPU that requires a maximum amount of time for processing the allocated data segments of the first size based on the number of items of data to be processed through one calculation, the amount of time required for performing the one calculation, and the number of the data segments of the first size with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 14 and 15 of “determining a second method for partitioning the input data, such that a processing time for the identified NPU to process the input data is minimized, wherein the second method is a method for partitioning the input data into a plurality of data segments of a second size” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine a second method for partitioning the input data, such that a processing time for the identified NPU to process the input data is minimized, wherein the second method is a method for partitioning the input data into a plurality of data segments of a second size with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 14 and 15 recite additional elements such as “acquiring a neural network model”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 14 and 15 recite additional elements such as “wherein when a plurality of NPUs are used for executing the model converted into the reference format, the determining of the size of input data segments”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
The limitation of the claims 2 and 16 of “when the neural network model includes floating point data, the converting of the neural network model to the model of the reference format comprises quantizing at least a portion of data included in the neural network model based on a set Q-number” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical operations but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “quantizing [calculating the precision]” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may quantize at least a portion of data such as floating points included in the neural network model based on a set Q-number with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operations” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 3 and 17 of “determining, for each of a plurality of candidate Q-numbers, a precision of the conversion of a case in which each candidate Q-number is used; and determining the Q-number based on a determination result of the precision” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine, for each of a plurality of candidate Q-numbers, a precision of the conversion of a case in which each candidate Q-number is used; and determine the Q-number based on a determination result of the precision with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 4 and 18 of “identifying a mean squared error (MSE) of the case in which each candidate Q-number is used” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may identify a mean squared error (MSE) of the case in which each candidate Q-number is used with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 5 and 19 of “identifying a precision of the conversion for the test neural network model” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may identify a precision of the conversion for the test neural network model with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 5 and 19 recite additional elements such as “acquiring a test neural network model”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
The limitation of the claims 6 and 20 of “acquiring a model that satisfies at least one of: a first condition of having a smaller number of nodes for each layer compared to the neural network model; a second condition of having a smaller weight for each node of a layer compared to the neural network model; and a third condition of having a smaller number of items of input and output data for execution compared to the neural network model” as drafted, is a mathematical operation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “comparing [i.e. a number of nodes or weights or a number of input and output data between the execution neural network model and test neural network model]” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may identify a precision of the conversion for the test neural network model with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operations” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claim 10 of “identifying a format executable in the NPU” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may identify a format executable in the NPU with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claim 11 of “identifying, for each of the plurality of formats, an inference result obtained in the NPU in a case in which the neural network model is converted using each format; and determining the reference format based on the inference result” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “identifying” and “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may identify, for each of the plurality of formats, an inference result obtained in the NPU in a case in which the neural network model is converted using each format; and determine the reference format based on the inference result with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claim 12 of “determining whether the neural network model is to be directly converted to the model of the reference format; directly converting the neural network model to the model of the reference format when the neural network model is to be directly converted to the model of the reference format; and converting the neural network model to a model of an intermediate format when the neural network model is not to be directly converted to the model of the reference format” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” and “converting (i.e. floating-point precision format)” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine whether the neural network model is to be directly converted to the model of the reference format; directly convert the neural network model to the model of the reference format when the neural network model is to be directly converted to the model of the reference format; and convert the neural network model to a model of an intermediate format when the neural network model is not to be directly converted to the model of the reference format with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 13 recites additional elements such as “wherein the intermediate format comprises a YAML format.”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
Dependent claims 2-6, 10-13 and 16-20 are also similar rejected under same rationale as cited above wherein these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims are merely further elaborate the mental process itself or providing additional definition of process which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 2-6, 10-13 and 16-20 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claims 1 and 15 respectively.
Reasons for Allowance
4.The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior-art, the prior-art, Darvish Rouhani (US PGPub 20200193274), in view of Burger (US PGPub 20190340492), and further in view of Abe (US Patent 5546503) failed to disclose: a method of processing information in an electronic apparatus, the method comprising: acquiring a neural network model; determining a reference format for conversion of the neural network model; converting the neural network model to a model of the reference format; and determining a size of input data segments for executing the model converted into the reference format in a neural processing unit (NPU), wherein when a plurality of NPUs are used for executing the model converted into the reference format, the determining of the size of input data segments comprises: partitioning input data into a plurality of data segments of a first size, based on a first method considering a number of the plurality of NPUs; determining, for each of the plurality of NPUs, a number of items of data to be processed through one calculation; determining, for each of the plurality of NPUs, an amount of time required for performing the one calculation; determining a number of the data segments of the first size allocated for each of the plurality of NPUs; based on the number of items of data to be processed through one calculation, the amount of time required for performing the one calculation, and the number of the data segments of the first size, identifying an NPU that requires a maximum amount of time for processing the allocated data segments of the first size; and determining a second method for partitioning the input data, such that a processing time for the identified NPU to process the input data is minimized, wherein the second method is a method for partitioning the input data into a plurality of data segments of a second size, as recited by the independent claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1, the closest prior-art found, Darvish Rouhani, Burger and Abe discloses of a method of processing information in an electronic apparatus, the method comprising: acquiring a neural network model; determining a reference format for conversion of the neural network model; converting the neural network model to a model of the reference format; and determining a size of input data segments for executing the model converted into the reference format in a neural processing unit (NPU), wherein when a plurality of NPUs are used for executing the model converted into the reference format, the determining of the size of input data segments comprises: partitioning input data into a plurality of data segments of a first size, based on a first method considering a number of the plurality of NPUs; determining, for each of the plurality of NPUs, a number of items of data to be processed through one calculation; determining, for each of the plurality of NPUs, an amount of time required for performing the one calculation; determining a number of the data segments of the first size allocated for each of the plurality of NPUs, wherein the second method is a method for partitioning the input data into a plurality of data segments of a second size.
However, the prior art, Darvish Rouhani, Burger and Abe failed to disclose the following subject matter such as “based on the number of items of data to be processed through one calculation, the amount of time required for performing the one calculation, and the number of the data segments of the first size, identifying an NPU that requires a maximum amount of time for processing the allocated data segments of the first size; and determining a second method for partitioning the input data, such that a processing time for the identified NPU to process the input data is minimized”.
Claim 14 is the product claim, similar to the claim 1, and claim 15 is the system claim, similar to the claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-6 and 10-20 contain allowable subject matter while claims 7-9 are canceled.
5. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's argument with respect to the claims 1, 14 and 15 and their dependent claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument of the remark on pages 9-10 regarding 101 Abstract Idea rejection that the amendment would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the examiner would like to point out that in order to determine if additional element is integrating the abstract idea into a practical application, 1) The specification should describe the claimed improvement to achieve the desired goal and 2) The claimed improvement should be reflected at least in the additional elements by specifying how the claimed improvement performs the additional element to improve functioning of a computer or existing technical field.
2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field [R-07.2022]
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.
I. RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS FOR EVALUATING WHETHER ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS INTEGRATE A JUDICIAL EXCEPTION INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION
The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have identified a number of considerations as relevant to the evaluation of whether the claimed additional elements demonstrate that a claim is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. The list of considerations here is not intended to be exclusive or limiting. Additional elements can often be analyzed based on more than one type of consideration and the type of consideration is of no import to the eligibility analysis. Additional discussion of these considerations, and how they were applied in particular judicial decisions, is provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a) through (c) and MPEP § 2106.05(e) through (h).
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
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 JAE UK JEON whose telephone number is (571)270-3649. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm. 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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/JAE U JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193