DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the application filed 10/12/2023.
Claims 1-14 are presented for examination.
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), and based on application # 2021-101996 filed in JAPAN on 06/18/2021, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The Applicants’ Information Disclosure Statement (filed 10/12/2023) has been received, entered into the record, and considered. A copy of PTO 1449 form is attached.
Drawings
4. The drawings filed 10/12/2023 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
5. The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Descriptive Title Required
The title of the invention is not descriptive. The title should be as “specific as possible” 37 CFR 1.72 while not exceeding “500 characters in length”. The title should provide “informative value” and serve to aid in the “indexing, classifying, searching” and other Official identification functions. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. MPEP606.01
The abstract is objected to because it does not comply with MPEP § 608.01(b).
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
6. Claims 10 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 10 and 14: “(Y is an even number of 2 or more)” should read “where Y is an even number of 2 or more”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a convolutional computation unit” (in claims 1, 10, and 14) and “a power gating unit” (in claim 1).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that there does not appear to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the named limitations.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. 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 1-14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As given above, the named limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function, rendering these limitations indefinite.
If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th Paragraph applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to add structure, material or acts that are sufficient to perform the claimed function; or
(b) Present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2181.
If Applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts 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
9. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sasaki (US 20130332758).
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
As to claim 1:
Sasaki teaches a computation processing device, comprising:
a convolutional computation unit that sequentially outputs convolutional computation result data ([0052-0053]: Each of FIGS. 4A to 4C illustrates in detail a reset operation setting unit 105 of the present exemplary embodiment. FIG. 4A illustrates a reset operation setting unit 105 that includes a reset cycle setting unit 601 and a counter 602. The reset cycle setting unit 601 sets the number of cycles required for the reset. The counter 602 starts operating with a power ready signal (P_RDY) from the power supply state determination unit 104 as a trigger. As the counter 602 starts counting (timing), the reset operation setting unit 105 starts outputting a clock enable signal (CLK_EN). Then, as the counter 602 stops counting, the reset operation setting unit 105 stops transmitting a reset signal (P_RST). Here, the reset cycle setting unit 601 may hold a fixed value in advance, hold a count value through the register setting by a CPU or the like (not shown), or load a count value from a memory or the like... When the counter 702 finishes counting for the set period, the reset operation setting unit 105 starts outputting a clock enable signal (CLK_EN) and propagates the power ready signal to the counter 602);
a pooling processing unit including a pooling computation circuit and a non-volatile storage circuit for pooling, in which the non-volatile storage circuit for pooling retains the convolutional computation result data or a computation result of the pooling computation circuit, as retained data, and the pooling computation circuit calculates and outputs pooling data subjected to pooling processing to a pooling region by using the retained data each time when the convolutional computation result data is input from the convolutional computation unit ([0054]: In FIG. 4C, a signal synchronization circuit 801 is added to operate the reset operation setting unit 105 being further synchronized with the power supply control target unit 101. For example, in a case where the power supply state determination unit 104 measures the state of the power supply Vdda as in FIG. 3A or 3C, the power ready signal is not necessarily input to the reset circuit in synchronization. In addition, it may be difficult to design the power supply state determination unit 104 and the reset operation setting unit 105 to be in synchronization with each other at the time of deciding on the layout of the semiconductor integrated circuit 100. Note that, similarly for an output signal (reset signal, clock enable signal) from the reset operation setting unit 105, flip-flops are arranged as synchronization signal output circuits 802 and 803, respectively; see also, [0055-0058]); and
a power gating unit that blocks power supply to the non-volatile storage circuit for pooling while waiting for the input of the convolutional computation result data from the convolutional computation unit ([0039]: In response to receiving an active power ready signal, the reset operation setting unit 105 sends to a gating clock buffer 106 a clock enable signal (indicated as CLKEN) to cancel gating. In addition to sending the clock enable signal, the reset operation setting unit 105 sends to the power supply control target unit 101 a reset signal (indicated as P_RST) only for a set period of time to carry out an initialization operation; [0061]: a synchronization mechanism may be provided in the power supply control target unit 101 and/or the gating clock buffer 106. In the configuration illustrated in FIG. 7A, a signal synchronization circuit 1102 is provided in a preceding stage of the gating clock buffer 106, and thus synchronization of a clock enable signal (CLK_EN) and the reset operation setting unit 105 can be improved. Here, a relay register 1101 distributes a reset signal (P_RST) within the power supply control target unit 101. In the configuration illustrated in FIG. 7B, the relay register 1101 is provided to distribute the reset signal within the power supply control target unit 101, and a signal synchronization circuit 1201 is provided in a preceding stage of the relay register 1101).
As to claim 2:
Sasaki teaches the pooling computation circuit includes a comparator that compares the convolutional computation result data from the convolutional computation unit with the retained data, and a selector, to which the convolutional computation result data from the convolutional computation unit and the retained data are input, that selects and outputs data with a larger value among the input data, on the basis of a comparison result of the comparator [0049-0050]), the non-volatile storage circuit for pooling retains data output from the pooling computation circuit, as new retained data [0054-0058]), and the pooling processing unit outputs the retained data retained in the non-volatile storage circuit for pooling by the input of each of the convolutional computation result data pieces in the pooling region to the pooling computation circuit, as the pooling data [0054-0058]).
As to claim 3:
Sasaki teaches the pooling computation circuit includes an adder that adds the convolutional computation result data from the convolutional computation unit and the retained data, and a divider that divides an addition result of the adder by the number of convolutional computation result data in the pooling region [0053-0054]),
the non-volatile storage circuit for pooling retains the addition result of the adder, as new retained data [0054-0058]), and the pooling processing unit outputs data obtained by dividing the addition result of the adder obtained by the input of each of the convolutional computation result data pieces in the pooling region to the pooling computation circuit with the divider, as the pooling data [0054-0058]).
As to claim 4:
Sasaki teaches the pooling computation circuit includes a multiplier that multiplies and weights the convolutional computation result data from the convolutional computation unit by a predetermined weight, an adder that adds a multiplication result from the multiplier and the retained data, and a divider that divides an addition result of the adder by the number of convolutional computation result data in the pooling region ([0049-0051]), the non-volatile storage circuit for pooling retains the addition result of the adder, as new retained data, and the pooling processing unit outputs data obtained by dividing the addition result of the adder obtained by the input of each of the convolutional computation result data pieces in the pooling region to the pooling computation circuit with the divider, as the pooling data ([0081-0084]).
As to claim 5:
Sasaki teaches the divider is a bit shift circuit that shifts data with a bit number according to the number of respective convolutional computation result data pieces in the pooling region ([0037-0039]).
As to claim 6:
Sasaki teaches the convolutional computation result data in the pooling region of p rows and q columns on a channel in which a plurality of the convolutional computation result data pieces are two-dimensionally arrayed is input to the pooling processing unit ([0063-0065]).
As to claim 7:
Sasaki teaches the pooling region is 2 rows and 2 columns ([0086]).
As to claim 8:
Sasaki teaches the non-volatile storage circuit for pooling includes a non-volatile register ([0050-0052]).
As to claim 9:
Sasaki teaches the non-volatile register includes a non-volatile flip-flop ([0052] and [0054]).
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 10-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, subject to the objection and the 112 rejection detailed above, subject to the results of a final search by the Examiner.
Claim 14 is allowable, subject to the objection and the 112 rejection detailed above, subject to the results of a final search by the Examiner.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record, listed on PTO 892 provided to Applicant is considered to have relevancy to the claimed invention. Applicant should review each identified reference carefully before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the prior art.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VAN H. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3765. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday from 9:00AM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, LEWIS BULLOCK, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3759. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/VAN H NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights