DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 have been examined.
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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The equations in the Specification are not fully legible.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The invention, as taught in Claims 1-10, is directed to “mental steps” and “mathematical steps” without significantly more.
The claims recite:
• setting a quantization level ‘l’ and a quantization level ‘u’ to l=−2b-1 and u=2b-1−2-1 (i.e., a mathematical step)
• setting a value ‘k’ to 1 (i.e., a mathematical step or mental step)
• calculating a quantized value (i.e., a mathematical step)
• performing partial differentiation…of a loss function ‘L’ (i.e., a mathematical step)
• using straight-through estimation (STE) for calculating a gradient of a quantization function during backpropagation (i.e., a mathematical step)
• calculating ∂x^/∂s (i.e., a mathematical step)
• calculating the ∂x^/∂s as -x/s+round(x/s) (i.e., a mathematical step)
• determining the ∂x^∂s as the quantization level ‘l’ (i.e., mental step)
• determining ∂x^∂s as the quantization level ‘u’ (i.e., mental step)
• updating the ‘x’ to x+g(∂L/∂x) (i.e., a mathematical step)
• updating ‘s’ to s+g(∂L/∂s) (i.e., a mathematical step)
• updating ‘n’ to ‘n+1’ (i.e., a mathematical step)
• determining whether “l<x/s<u” is satisfied (i.e., mental step)
• updating a gradient-independent quantization step ‘s’ (i.e., a mathematical step)
• an initial value of the β is a hyperparameter, and the β is determined by using the initial value or through reinforcement learning (i.e., mental step)
Claim 1
Step 1 inquiry: Does this claim fall within a statutory category?
The preamble of the claim recites “1. A quantization-aware training (QAT) method comprising…” Therefore, it is a “method” (or “process”), which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is: “YES.”
Step 2A (Prong One) inquiry:
Are there limitations in Claim 1 that recite abstract ideas?
YES. The following limitations in Claim 1 recite abstract ideas that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, they are “mental steps” and “mathematical steps”. The claims recite:
• setting a quantization level ‘l’ and a quantization level ‘u’ to l=−2b-1 and u=2b-1−2-1 (i.e., a mathematical step)
• setting a value ‘k’ to 1 (i.e., a mathematical step or mental step)
• calculating a quantized value (i.e., a mathematical step)
• performing partial differentiation…of a loss function ‘L’ (i.e., a mathematical step)
• using straight-through estimation (STE) for calculating a gradient of a quantization function during backpropagation (i.e., a mathematical step)
• calculating ∂x^/∂s (i.e., a mathematical step)
• calculating the ∂x^/∂s as -x/s+round(x/s) (i.e., a mathematical step)
• determining the ∂x^∂s as the quantization level ‘l’ (i.e., mental step)
• determining ∂x^∂s as the quantization level ‘u’ (i.e., mental step)
• updating the ‘x’ to x+g(∂L/∂x) (i.e., a mathematical step)
• updating ‘s’ to s+g(∂L/∂s) (i.e., a mathematical step)
• updating ‘n’ to ‘n+1’ (i.e., a mathematical step)
• determining whether “l<x/s<u” is satisfied (i.e., mental step)
• updating a gradient-independent quantization step ‘s’ (i.e., a mathematical step)
• an initial value of the β is a hyperparameter, and the β is determined by using the initial value or through reinforcement learning (i.e., mental step)
Step 2A (Prong Two) inquiry:
Are there additional elements or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception?
Applicant’s claims contain no “additional elements.” Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B inquiry:
Does the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Applicant’s claims contain no “additional elements.” Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the claimed abstract ideas the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites:
2. The QAT method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining whether the value ‘k’ is equal to a value Na, wherein the Na is a learning hyperparameter; (i.e., mental steps)
calculating a reward function ‘R’; and (i.e., mathematical steps)
initializing the ‘k’ to 1, (i.e., mental steps)
wherein the reward function ‘R’ is determined to represent performance when learning is performed by using the β, and (i.e., mental steps)
wherein the reward function ‘R’ is defined as an average of the loss function ‘L’ calculated during Na updates, a difference between weights before and after quantization, or a difference between activation function values. (i.e., mental steps)
Applicant’s Claim 2 merely teaches the mathematical step of “calculating a reward function ‘R’” and mental determinations. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 2 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites:
3. The QAT method of claim 2, further comprising:
updating the β to “A(β;πΘ)”,
wherein the “A(β;πΘ)” is updated to “a*(β)”, and
wherein the “a*(β)” is “a*=argmaxa∈AπΘ(a|β, x, s)”.
Applicant’s Claim 3 merely teaches the updating of mathematical parameters using mathematical functions. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 3 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites:
4. The QAT method of claim 3, further comprising:
calculating “G(λi,s,x)=[round(clamp(x/λis,l,u))λis-x]2 “with respect to each i∈1; and
calculating “i*=argmini∈IG(λi, s, x)”.
Applicant’s Claim 4 merely teaches two mathematical calculations. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 4 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites:
5. The QAT method of claim 4, wherein the set {λi}i∈I is a set “{0.95, 0.96, . . . , 1.04, 1.05}” generated with an interval of 0.01 between 0.95 and 1.05.
Applicant’s Claim 5 merely teaches a set of purely numerical parameters. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 5 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 6
Step 1 inquiry: Does this claim fall within a statutory category?
The preamble of the claim recites “6. A program for QAT stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the program, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform a method for the QAT, wherein the method including…” Therefore, it is a “non-transitory computer-readable medium” (or “product of manufacture”), which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is: “YES.”
Step 2A (Prong One) inquiry:
Are there limitations in Claim 6 that recite abstract ideas?
YES. The following limitations in Claim 6 recite abstract ideas that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, they are “mental steps” and “mathematical steps”. The claims recite:
• setting a quantization level ‘l’ and a quantization level ‘u’ to l=−2b-1 and u=2b-1−2-1 (i.e., a mathematical step)
• setting a value ‘k’ to 1 (i.e., a mathematical step or mental step)
• calculating a quantized value (i.e., a mathematical step)
• performing partial differentiation…of a loss function ‘L’ (i.e., a mathematical step)
• using straight-through estimation (STE) for calculating a gradient of a quantization function during backpropagation (i.e., a mathematical step)
• calculating ∂x^/∂s (i.e., a mathematical step)
• calculating the ∂x^/∂s as -x/s+round(x/s) (i.e., a mathematical step)
• determining the ∂x^∂s as the quantization level ‘l’ (i.e., mental step)
• determining ∂x^∂s as the quantization level ‘u’ (i.e., mental step)
• updating the ‘x’ to x+g(∂L/∂x) (i.e., a mathematical step)
• updating ‘s’ to s+g(∂L/∂s) (i.e., a mathematical step)
• updating ‘n’ to ‘n+1’ (i.e., a mathematical step)
• determining whether “l<x/s<u” is satisfied (i.e., mental step)
• updating a gradient-independent quantization step ‘s’ (i.e., a mathematical step)
• an initial value of the β is a hyperparameter, and the β is determined by using the initial value or through reinforcement learning (i.e., mental step)
Step 2A (Prong Two) inquiry:
Are there additional elements or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A “processor”
(2) A “program”
(3) A “non-transitory computer readable medium”
A “processor” is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f) recites:
For claim limitations that do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners should explain why they do not meaningfully limit the claim in an eligibility rejection. For example, an examiner could explain that implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two…
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f)(2) recites:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
This “processor” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “program” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f) recites:
For claim limitations that do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners should explain why they do not meaningfully limit the claim in an eligibility rejection. For example, an examiner could explain that implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two…
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f)(2) recites:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
This “program” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “non-transitory computer readable medium” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f) recites:
For claim limitations that do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners should explain why they do not meaningfully limit the claim in an eligibility rejection. For example, an examiner could explain that implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two…
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f)(2) recites:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
This “non-transitory computer readable medium” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B inquiry:
Does the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A “processor”
(2) A “program”
(3) A “non-transitory computer readable medium”
A “processor” is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f)(2) recites:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “program” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f)(2) recites:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “non-transitory computer readable medium” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f)(2) recites:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the claimed abstract ideas the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 6 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites:
7. The program of claim 6, further comprising:
determining whether the value ‘k’ is equal to a value Na, wherein the Na is a learning hyperparameter;
calculating a reward function ‘R’; and
initializing the ‘k’ to 1,
wherein the reward function ‘R’ is determined to represent performance when learning is performed by using the β, and
wherein the reward function ‘R’ is defined as an average of the loss function ‘L’ calculated during Na updates, a difference between weights before and after quantization, or a difference between activation function values.
Applicant’s Claim 7 merely teaches the mathematical step of “calculating a reward function ‘R’” and mental determinations. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 7 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites:
8. The program of claim 6, further comprising:
updating the β to “A(β;πΘ)”,
wherein the “A(β;πΘ)” is updated to “a*(β)”, and
wherein the “a*(β)” is “a*=argmaxa∈A πΘ(a|β, x, s)”.
Applicant’s Claim 8 merely teaches the updating of mathematical parameters using mathematical functions. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 8 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites:
9. The program of claim 8, further comprising:
calculating “G(λi,s,x)= [round(clamp(xλis,l,u)) λ1s-x]2 “with respect to each i∈I; and
calculating “i*=argmini∈I G(λi, s, x)”.
Applicant’s Claim 9 merely teaches two mathematical calculations. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 9 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites:
10. The program of claim 6, wherein the set {λi}i∈I is a set “{0.95, 0.96, . . . , 1.04, 1.05}” generated with an interval of 0.01 between 0.95 and 1.05.
Applicant’s Claim 10 merely teaches a set of purely numerical parameters. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 10 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sun, et al., MWQ: Multiscale Wavelet Quantized Neural Networks, arXiv:2103.05363v1 [cs.CV] 09 MAR 2021, pp. 1-10, in view of Habi, et al., HMQ: Hardware Friendly Mixed Precision Quantization Block for CNNs, arXiv:2007.09952v1 [cs.LG] 20 JUL 2020, pp. 1-19, further in view of: Ziebart, Modeling Purposeful Adaptive Behavior with the Principle of Maximum Causal Entropy, Doctoral Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, DEC 2010, pp. 1-236, in their entireties. Specifically:
Claim 1
Claim 1’s “setting a quantization level ‘l’ and a quantization level ‘u’ to l = −2b-1 and u = 2b-1-1, and setting a value ‘k’ to 1, wherein the quantization level ‘l’ is a minimum value of a quantization function, and the quantization level ‘u’ is a maximum value of the quantization function;” is taught by Sun, et al., page 5, left column, equation 11, where it recites:
Q(Wi,m) = round(clamp(Wi/si,−1,1) ∗ S) ∗ di, (11)
s.t. S = 2m−1 −1, di =si/S,
Note that the quantization level ‘l’ is the “-1” inside the clamp function and quantization level ‘u’ is the “1” inside the clamp function
Claim 1’s “calculating a quantized value x^ as x^ = round(clamp(x/s, l, u)), wherein the ‘s’ is an initial quantization step, and the ‘x’ is target data to be quantized;” is taught by Sun, et al., page 5, left column, equation 11, where it recites:
Q(Wi,m) = round(clamp(Wi/si,−1,1) ∗ S) ∗ di, (11)
s.t. S = 2m−1 −1, di =si/S,
Claim 1’s “performing partial differentiation ∂L/∂x^ of a loss function ‘L’ with the x^ by using straight-through estimation (STE) for calculating a gradient of a quantization function during backpropagation;” is not expressly taught by Sun, et al. It is, however taught by Habi, et al., page 5, next to last full paragraph, where it recites:
In back-propagation, the gradients of rounding operations are estimated using the STE and the rest of the module, i.e. Equations 4, 5 and 6, are differentiable. This implies that the HMQ smoothly updates the parameters πt,b which, in turn, smoothly updates the estimated bit-width and threshold values of the quantization scheme. Figure 1 shows examples of HMQ quantization schemes during training. During inference, the HMQ's quantizer is parametrized by the pair (t, b) that corresponds to the maximal parameter πt,b.
Rationale -- It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date, to estimate the gradients of Sun, et al. using the STE method of Habi, et al. because it permits backpropagation calculations.
Claim 1’s “calculating ∂x^/∂s, wherein the calculating ∂x^/∂s includes: when the x/s is a value between the quantization level ‘l’ and the quantization level ‘u’, calculating the ∂x^/∂s as -x/s + round(x/s); and” is a conditional limitation that need not be performed.
Claim 1’s “when the x/s is not a value between the quantization level ‘l’ and the quantization level ‘u’, determining the ∂x^/∂s as the quantization level ‘l’ when the x/s is less than ‘l’, and determining ∂x/^∂s as the quantization level ‘u’ when the x/s is greater than ‘u’; updating the ‘x’ to x+g(∂L/∂x), updating ‘s’ to s+g(∂L/∂s), and updating ‘n’ to ‘n+1’; determining whether “l < x/s < u” is satisfied; and” i is a conditional limitation that need not be performed.
Claim 1’s “when “l < x/s < u” is satisfied, updating a gradient-independent quantization step ‘s’ to “s−β(s− smin)”” wherein an initial value of the β is a hyperparameter, and the β is determined by using the initial value or through reinforcement learning, and wherein the smin is a hyperparameter” is a conditional limitation that need not be performed.
Claim 2
2. The QAT method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining whether the value ‘k’ is equal to a value Na, wherein the Na is a learning hyperparameter;
calculating a reward function ‘R’; and
initializing the ‘k’ to 1,
wherein the reward function ‘R’ is determined to represent performance when learning is performed by using the β, and
wherein the reward function ‘R’ is defined as an average of the loss function ‘L’ calculated during Na updates, a difference between weights before and after quantization, or a difference between activation function values.
Note that the last two clauses are conditional and need not be performed because of the “when” statement in the next to last clause.
Sun, et al. does not expressly discuss a calculated “reward”.
The prior art of Ziebart, Modeling Purposeful Adaptive Behavior with the Principle of Maximum Causal Entropy, Doctoral Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, DEC 2010, pp. 1-236 teaches such a reward function on page 19, third bullet point.
Rationale -- It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date, to combine the reward of Ziebart with the policy calculation of Sun, et al. because it enables a more refined guidance of a policy calculation through a reward mechanism.
Claim 3
3. The QAT method of claim 2, further comprising:
updating the β to “A(β;πΘ)”,
wherein the “A(β;πΘ)” is updated to “a*(β)”, and
wherein the “a*(β)” is “a*=argmaxa∈AπΘ(a|β, x, s)”.
Sun, et al. does not expressly discuss the “argmax” of a policy.
The prior art of Ziebart, Modeling Purposeful Adaptive Behavior with the Principle of Maximum Causal Entropy, Doctoral Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, DEC 2010, pp. 1-236 teaches such an argmax function on page 19, equation 2.4.
Rationale -- It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date, to combine the reward of Ziebart with the policy calculation of Sun, et al. because it helps to find an optimal policy calculation.
Claim 6
Claim 6’s “6. A program for QAT stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the program, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform a method for the QAT…” is taught (regarding the “non-transitory computer-readable medium”) by Sun, et al., page 1, right column, last partial paragraph, where it recites:
Compared with the full-precision model, the quantized model has less parameter storage, lower bandwidth requirements, faster computing speed, lower energy and memory consumption.
Further, the processor is taught by Sun, et al., page 8, left column, first partial paragraph, where it recites:
Our network is fine-tuned with SGD for 100K iterations with the initial learning rate being 1 × 10−3 and the batch size of 16 for 8 V100 GPUs.
Claim 6’s “setting a quantization level ‘l’ and a quantization level ‘u’ to l = −2b-1 and u = 2b-1-1, and setting a value ‘k’ to 1, wherein the quantization level ‘l’ is a minimum value of a quantization function, and the quantization level ‘u’ is a maximum value of the quantization function;” is taught by Sun, et al., page 5, left column, equation 11, where it recites:
Q(Wi,m) = round(clamp(Wi/si,−1,1) ∗ S) ∗ di, (11)
s.t. S = 2m−1 −1, di =si/S,
Note that the quantization level ‘l’ is the “-1” inside the clamp function and quantization level ‘u’ is the “1” inside the clamp function
Claim 6’s “calculating a quantized value x^ as x^ = round(clamp(x/s, l, u)), wherein the ‘s’ is an initial quantization step, and the ‘x’ is target data to be quantized;” is taught by Sun, et al., page 5, left column, equation 11, where it recites:
Q(Wi,m) = round(clamp(Wi/si,−1,1) ∗ S) ∗ di, (11)
s.t. S = 2m−1 −1, di =si/S,
Claim 6’s “performing partial differentiation ∂L/∂x^ of a loss function ‘L’ with the x^ by using straight-through estimation (STE) for calculating a gradient of a quantization function during backpropagation;” is not expressly taught by Sun, et al. It is, however taught by Habi, et al., page 5, next to last full paragraph, where it recites:
In back-propagation, the gradients of rounding operations are estimated using the STE and the rest of the module, i.e. Equations 4, 5 and 6, are differentiable. This implies that the HMQ smoothly updates the parameters πt,b which, in turn, smoothly updates the estimated bit-width and threshold values of the quantization scheme. Figure 1 shows examples of HMQ quantization schemes during training. During inference, the HMQ's quantizer is parametrized by the pair (t, b) that corresponds to the maximal parameter πt,b.
Rationale -- It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date, to estimate the gradients of Sun, et al. using the STE method of Habi, et al. because it permits backpropagation calculations.
Claim 6’s “calculating ∂x^/∂s, wherein the calculating ∂x^/∂s includes: when the x/s is a value between the quantization level ‘l’ and the quantization level ‘u’, calculating the ∂x^/∂s as -x/s + round(x/s); and” is a conditional limitation that need not be performed.
Claim 6’s “when the x/s is not a value between the quantization level ‘l’ and the quantization level ‘u’, determining the ∂x^/∂s as the quantization level ‘l’ when the x/s is less than ‘l’, and determining ∂x/^∂s as the quantization level ‘u’ when the x/s is greater than ‘u’; updating the ‘x’ to x+g(∂L/∂x), updating ‘s’ to s+g(∂L/∂s), and updating ‘n’ to ‘n+1’; determining whether “l < x/s < u” is satisfied; and” i is a conditional limitation that need not be performed.
Claim 6’s “when “l < x/s < u” is satisfied, updating a gradient-independent quantization step ‘s’ to “s−β(s− smin)”” wherein an initial value of the β is a hyperparameter, and the β is determined by using the initial value or through reinforcement learning, and wherein the smin is a hyperparameter” is a conditional limitation that need not be performed.
Claim 7
7. The program of claim 6, further comprising:
determining whether the value ‘k’ is equal to a value Na, wherein the Na is a learning hyperparameter;
calculating a reward function ‘R’; and
initializing the ‘k’ to 1,
wherein the reward function ‘R’ is determined to represent performance when learning is performed by using the β, and
wherein the reward function ‘R’ is defined as an average of the loss function ‘L’ calculated during Na updates, a difference between weights before and after quantization, or a difference between activation function values.
Note that the last two clauses are conditional and need not be performed because of the “when” statement in the next to last clause.
Sun, et al. does not expressly discuss a calculated “reward”.
The prior art of Ziebart, Modeling Purposeful Adaptive Behavior with the Principle of Maximum Causal Entropy, Doctoral Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, DEC 2010, pp. 1-236 teaches such a reward function on page 19, third bullet point.
Rationale -- It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date, to combine the reward of Ziebart with the policy calculation of Sun, et al. because it enables a more refined guidance of a policy calculation through a reward mechanism.
Claim 8
8. The program of claim 6, further comprising:
updating the β to “A(β;πΘ)”,
wherein the “A(β;πΘ)” is updated to “a*(β)”, and
wherein the “a*(β)” is “a*=argmaxa∈AπΘ(a|β, x, s)”.
Sun, et al. does not expressly discuss the “argmax” of a policy.
The prior art of Ziebart, Modeling Purposeful Adaptive Behavior with the Principle of Maximum Causal Entropy, Doctoral Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, DEC 2010, pp. 1-236 teaches such an argmax function on page 19, equation 2.4.
Rationale -- It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date, to combine the reward of Ziebart with the policy calculation of Sun, et al. because it helps to find an optimal policy calculation.
Reasons Claims Are Not Rejected Under Art
Claims 4-5 and 9-10 are not rejected under art.
The following is an Examiner's statement of reasons for why the claims are not rejected under art: Claims 4-5 and 9-10 are not rejected since when reading the claims in light of the specification, as per MPEP § 2111.01, none of the references of record, whether taken alone or in combination, discloses or suggests the combination of limitations specified in independent Claims 4-5 and 9-10.
Specifically, in Claims 4 and 9, the closest prior art of Vandersteegen, et al., Integer-Only CNNs with 4 Bit Weights and Bit-Shift Quantization Scales at Full-Precision Accuracy, Electronics 2021, 10, 2823, 17 NOV 2021, pp. 1-25, page 15, equation 32 fails to expressly teach :
Claim 4 and 9’s “…i* = argmini∈I G(λi, s, x)…” of the policy equation ““G(λi,s,x)=[round(clamp(x/(λis),l,u))λis-x]2” with respect to each i∈1”
Further, none of the references of record, whether taken alone or in combination, discloses or suggests the combination of limitations specified in independent Claims 5 and 10.
Specifically, in Claims 5 and 10, the closest prior art of Sun, et al., MWQ: Multiscale Wavelet Quantized Neural Networks, arXiv:2103.05363v1 [cs.CV] 09 MAR 2021, pp. 1-10 fails to expressly teach :
Claim 5 and 10’s “…the set {λi}i∈I is a set “{0.95, 0.96, . . . , 1.04, 1.05}” generated with an interval of 0.01 between 0.95 and 1.05…” as range claims on the policy equation of the policy equation “G(λi,s,x)=[round(clamp(x/(λis),l,u))λis-x]2” with respect to each i∈1.
Conclusion
Any inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wilbert L. Starks, Jr., who may be reached Monday through Friday, between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. EST. or via telephone at (571) 272-3691 or email: Wilbert.Starks@uspto.gov.
If you need to send an Official facsimile transmission, please send it to (571) 273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful the Examiner’s Supervisor (SPE), Kakali Chaki, may be reached at (571) 272-3719.
Hand-delivered responses should be delivered to the Receptionist @ (Customer Service Window Randolph Building 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22313), located on the first floor of the south side of the Randolph Building.
Finally, information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Moreover, 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 any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) toll-free @ 1-866-217-9197.
/WILBERT L STARKS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2122
WLS
16 APR 2026
Prosecution Insights