DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the application filed on July 5, 2023. A preliminary amendment was filed on July 5, 2023, canceling Claims 8 – 11 and 15, adding Claims 17 – 21, and amending Claims 1, 14, and 16. Claims 1 – 7, 12 – 14, and 16 – 21, of which Claims 1, 12, and 14 are in independent form, are presented for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 5, 2023 was filed before the mailing date of the current action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 – 7, 14, and 16 – 21 are 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.
1. Claim limitation “counting module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification provides a generalized box to perform the functions and the possibility of the module being within or outside the neuromorphic chip. However, no structure for performing the counting is described. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
2. Claim limitation “decision-making module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification provides a generalized box to perform the functions, the possibility of the module being within or outside the neuromorphic chip, and a portion of the module comprising a low-pass filter, which also can be software [Fig. 5; Para. 0063-64, 0070]. However, no structure for performing the decision-making is described. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 7, 12 – 14, and 16 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PGPub. 2019/0138900 (hereinafter “Linares-Barranco”).
2. Regarding Claim 1, Linares-Barranco discloses a spike event decision-making device [Fig. 7; Para. 0137; neuron circuit], configured to make a decision based on output spike events of a spiking neural network in the neuromorphic chip [Figs. 5, 7, and 10; Para. 0137; neuron circuit within a SNN], the spike event decision-making device comprising:
a first counting module, configured to count a number of input spike events of the spiking neural network [Figs. 1a and 7; Para. 0118-119, 0139-142; learning counter]; and
a decision-making module is configured to generate a decision-making result according to numbers of spike events fired by a plurality of neurons in an output layer of the spiking neural network when the number counted by the first counting module reaches a first predetermined value [Figs. 7, 10; Para. 0119, 0144; first comparator module decides on an output signal].
3. Regarding Claim 2, Linares-Barranco discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Linares-Barranco further discloses of comprising:
a second counting module [Fig. 7; Para. 0165-168; firing counter], configured to perform one of following operations to count the numbers of spike events fired by the plurality of neurons in the output layer of the spiking neural network:
(i) counting spikes fired by each neuron in the output layer, and adding them up to obtain a total count of the spikes fired by a part or all neurons in the output layer;
(ii) counting spikes fired by a plurality of neurons in the output layer to obtain the total count [Para. 0165-168]; and
(iii) counting spikes fired by each neuron in the output layer without adding them up.
4. Regarding Claim 3, Linares-Barranco discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Linares-Barranco further discloses that the decision-making module is further configured to make a decision when the number counted by the first counting module reaches the first predetermined value or when the count of the first count module reaches the first predetermined value and when a number counted by the second counting module reaches a second predetermined value [Fig. 7; Para. 0139-142, 0165-168].
5. Regarding Claim 4, Linares-Barranco discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Linares-Barranco further discloses that when there are at least two successive decision-making results, there is a partial overlap between the input spike events corresponding to the two corresponding numbers counted by the first counting module; and/or, there is partial overlap between the spike events fired by the neurons in the output layer of the spiking neural network corresponding to the two corresponding numbers counted by the second counting module [Fig. 7; Para. 0139-142, 0165-168].
6. Regarding Claim 5, Linares-Barranco discloses the limitations of Claim 2. Linares-Barranco further discloses that the second counting module uses a plurality of sub-counter to count spike events fired by each of the plurality of neurons in the output layer, to remove an earliest count in the sub-counter, and to use a zeroed sub-counter to count new spike events; and a sum of counts in all sub-counters corresponding to each neuron in the output layer is used as a count on which the decision-making result is based [Para. 0165-168].
7. Regarding Claim 6, Linares-Barranco discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Linares-Barranco further discloses that when a plurality of successive decision-making results meet one or a plurality of conditions below, then outputting a decision-making result with the largest number of occurrences in the successive decision-making results: (i) when a transition rate or a number of transitions of the successive decision-making results is lower than a first threshold [Para. 0165-168; fixed firing threshold value can be lower than the learning threshold counter]; and (ii) when a ratio of the decision result with the most occurrences to the successive decision-making results is higher than a second threshold; otherwise, stopping outputting any decision result or outputting the decision result with an uncertain indication result.
8. Regarding Claim 7, Linares-Barranco discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Linares-Barranco further discloses that one or more of the first counting module, and the decision-making module is implemented inside or outside the neuromorphic chip [Fig. 7; inside].
9. Regarding Claim 12, Linares-Barranco discloses a spike event decision-making method, configured to make a decision based on output spike events of a spiking neural network in a neuromorphic chip [Figs. 5, 7, 10, and 11; Para. 0137; neuron circuit within a SNN], the method comprising:
counting a number of input spike events of the spiking neural network to obtain a first count value [Figs. 1a and 7; Para. 0118-119, 0139-142; learning counter]; and
generating a decision-making result according to counts of spike events of each of a plurality of neurons in an output layer of the spiking neural network when the first count value reaches a first predetermined value [Figs. 7, 10; Para. 0119, 0144; first comparator module decides on an output signal]; or counting a number of output spike events of some or all neurons in the output layer of the spiking neural network to obtain a second count value [Para. 0165-168]; and
generating a decision-making result according to counts of spike events of each of the neurons in an output layer of the spiking neural network when the second count value reaches a second predetermined value [Fig. 7; Para. 0165-168].
10. Regarding Claim 13, Linares-Barranco discloses the limitations of Claim 12. Linares-Barranco further discloses that there is at least a partial overlap between the input spike events corresponding to the first count value obtained twice when two adjacent decision-making results are made; or/and, use a plurality of sub-counter to count each spike event emitted by some or all neurons of the output layer; remove the earliest count in the sub-counter, and use the zeroed sub-counter to count the newly issued spike events; the sum of counts in all sub-counters corresponding to each neuron in the output layer is used as the count on which the decision result is based [Fig. 7; Para. 0139-142, 0165-168].
11. Regarding Claim 14, Linares-Barranco discloses a chip deploying a spike neural network, comprising a spike event decision-making device, wherein the spike event decision-making device is configured to make decisions on output spike events of the spike neural network by an event imaging device [Figs. 5, 7, 10, and 11; Para. 0137; neuron circuit within a SNN], the spike event decision-making device comprising:
a first counting module, configured to count a number of input spike events of the spiking neural network [Figs. 1a and 7; Para. 0118-119, 0139-142; learning counter]; and
a decision-making module is configured to generate a decision-making result according to numbers of spike events outputted by a plurality of neurons in an output layer of the spiking neural network when the number counted by the first counting module reaches a first predetermined value [Figs. 7, 10; Para. 0119, 0144; first comparator module decides on an output signal].
12. Regarding Claim 16, Linares-Barranco discloses the limitations of Claim 14. Linares-Barranco further discloses that the spike event decision-making device further comprises:
a second counting module [Fig. 7; Para. 0165-168; firing counter], configured to perform one of following operations to count the numbers of spike events outputted by the plurality of neurons in the output layer of the spiking neural network: (i) counting spikes outputted by each neuron in the output layer, and adding them up to obtain a total count of the spikes outputted by a part or all neurons in the output layer; (ii) counting spikes outputted by a plurality of neurons in the output layer to obtain the total count [Fig. 7; Para. 0165-168; firing counter]; and (iii) counting spikes outputted by each neuron in the output layer without adding them up.
13. Regarding Claim 17, Linares-Barranco discloses the limitations of Claim 14. Linares-Barranco further discloses that the decision-making module is further configured to make a decision when the number counted by the first counting module reaches the first predetermined value or when the count of the first count module reaches the first predetermined value and when a number counted by the second counting module second count module reaches a second predetermined value [Fig. 7; Para. 0139-142, 0165-168].
14. Regarding Claim 18, Linares-Barranco discloses the limitations of Claim 14. Linares-Barranco further discloses that when there are at least two successive decision-making results, there is a partial overlap between the input spike events corresponding to the two corresponding numbers counted by the first counting module; and/or, there is partial overlap between the spike events outputted by the neurons in the output layer of the spiking neural network corresponding to the two corresponding numbers counted by in the second counting module [Fig. 7; Para. 0139-142, 0165-168].
15. Regarding Claim 19, Linares-Barranco discloses the limitations of Claim 14. Linares-Barranco further discloses that the second counting module uses a plurality of sub-counter to count spike events outputted by each of the plurality of neurons in the output layer, to remove an earliest count in the sub-counter, and to use a zeroed sub-counter to count new spike events; and a sum of counts in all sub-counters corresponding to each neuron in the output layer is used as a count on which the decision-making result is based [Para. 0165-168].
16. Regarding Claim 20, Linares-Barranco discloses the limitations of Claim 14. Linares-Barranco further discloses that when a plurality of successive decision-making results meet one or a plurality of conditions below, then outputting a decision-making result with the largest number of occurrences in the successive decision-making results: (i) when a transition rate or a number of transitions of the successive decision-making results is lower than a first threshold [Para. 0165-168; fixed firing threshold value can be lower than the learning threshold counter]; and (ii) when a ratio of the decision result with the most occurrences to the successive decision-making results is higher than a second threshold; otherwise, stopping outputting any decision result or outputting the decision result with an uncertain indication result.
17. Regarding Claim 21, Linares-Barranco discloses the limitations of Claim 14. Linares-Barranco further discloses that the one or more of the first counting module, the second counting module, and the decision-making module is implemented inside or outside the neurochip [Fig. 7; inside].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. PGPub. 2022/0292364; U.S. Patent 12,530,567.
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tae K. Kim, whose telephone number is (571) 270-1979. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (10:00 AM - 6:30 PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jorge Ortiz-Criado, can be reached on (571) 272-7624. The fax phone number for submitting all Official communications is (703) 872-9306. The fax phone number for submitting informal communications such as drafts, proposed amendments, etc., may be faxed directly to the examiner at (571) 270-2979.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/TAE K KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2496