The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 9 January 2024. THIS ACTION IS NON-FINAL.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to software per se.
Claim 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
There is no art rejection for claims 1-19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Non-Statutory Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to software per se.
Judicial Exception
Claims 15-19 of the claimed invention are directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
Regarding claims 15-19,
(Independent Claims) With regards to claim 15,
Step 1: The claim recites a process, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites: “performing… a first convolution operation on input data based on a kernel of 1x1 size to generate a first result data having a channel of a first size; performing… second convolution operations on respective channels of the first result data based on a kernel of n x n size, where n is a natural number of 2 or greater; summing… result values of the second convolution operations on the respective channels in the second convolution layer to generate second result data having a channel of a second size; and performing… a third convolution operation on the second result data based on the kernel of the 1x1 size to generate final result data” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components. . That is, the steps of “performing”, “summing”, based on their broadest reasonable interpretation, describe mathematical relationships and algorithms. Mathematical relationship and algorithms have been found by the courts to be abstract ideas, e.g., see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) A. Mathematical Relationships, iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “A method of operating a computing system for processing a convolution block including a plurality of convolution layers”, “by a first convolution layer among the plurality of convolution layers”, “by a second convolution layer among the plurality of convolution layers”, “by the second convolution layer”, “by a third convolution layer among the plurality of convolution layers”, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly. the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of “A method of operating a computing system for processing a convolution block including a plurality of convolution layers”, “by a first convolution layer among the plurality of convolution layers”, “by a second convolution layer among the plurality of convolution layers”, “by the second convolution layer”, “by a third convolution layer among the plurality of convolution layers”, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
(Dependent claims)
Claims 16-19 are dependent on claim 15, and include all the limitations of claim 15. Therefore, claims 16-19 recite the same abstract ideas.
With regards to claim 16, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein: resulting from the performing the first convolution operation, the first size becomes smaller than a size of a channel of the input data, and resulting from the performing the third convolution operation, a size of a channel of the final result data becomes greater than the second size” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further elements of math calculation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculation, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 17, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein the first size is determined to be a lesser value of a value, obtained by dividing a number of rows of a storage area on which the first convolution operation is performed by the n x n size, and a number of columns of the storage area” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further elements of math calculation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculation, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 18, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein the second size is determined to be a lesser value of a number of rows of a storage area on which the second convolution operations are performed and a number of columns of the storage area” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further elements of math calculation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculation, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 19, the claim recites further limitation of “further comprising, before performing the second convolution operations on the respective channels of the first result data, performing a channel-wise quantization operation on the first result data” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further elements of math calculation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculation, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 1-14,
(Independent Claims) With regards to claim 1,
Step 1: The claim is directed to SW per se, which does not fall into one of the statutory categories. For compact prosecution, 101 judiciary analysis is performed as is can be applied after the claim is amended to be in one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites: “to perform convolution operations on input data based on weight data to generate final result data; and … to control the operating component to perform the convolution operations…: … to perform a first convolution operation on the input data based on a kernel of 1×1 size to generate first result data; … to perform second convolution operations on respective channels of the first result data based on a kernel of n x n size, and sum result values of the convolution operations on the respective channels of the first result data to generate second result data, where n is a natural number of 2 or greater; and … to perform a third convolution operation on the second result data based on the kernel of the 1×1 size to generate the final result data” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components. . That is, the steps of “performing”, “summing”, based on their broadest reasonable interpretation, describe mathematical relationships and algorithms. Mathematical relationship and algorithms have been found by the courts to be abstract ideas, e.g., see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) A. Mathematical Relationships, iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “A computing system comprising: an operating component including at least one convolution block configured…”, “ a controller configured…”, “…convolution block …”, “a first convolution layer configured…”, “a second convolution layer configured…”, “a third convolution layer configured…”, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly. the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of “A computing system comprising: an operating component including at least one convolution block configured…”, “ a controller configured…”, “…convolution block …”, “a first convolution layer configured…”, “a second convolution layer configured…”, “a third convolution layer configured…”, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
(Dependent claims)
Claims 2-14 are dependent on claim 1, and include all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-14 recite the same abstract ideas.
With regards to claim 2, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein the at least one convolution block further comprises: a batch normalization layer; and an activation layer” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further elements of math relationship / calculation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationship / calculation, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 3, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein the at least one convolution block is formed in a bottleneck structure in which the first convolution layer, the second convolution layer, and the third convolution layer are sequentially located” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further elements of math relationship / calculation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationship / calculation, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 4, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein, according to the first convolution operation, a number of channels of the first result data becomes less than a number of channels of the input data” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further elements of math relationship / calculation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationship / calculation, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 5, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein, according to the third convolution operations, a number of channels of the final result data becomes greater than a number of channels of the second result data” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further elements of math relationship / calculation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationship / calculation, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 6, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein each of the first convolution operation and the third convolution operation includes a point-wise convolution operation” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further elements of math relationship / calculation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationship / calculation, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 7, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein the operating component further includes a storage area in which a plurality of cells storing a weight array corresponding to the weight data are formed in an array structure” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further elements of math relationship / calculation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationship / calculation, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 8, the claim recites further limitation of “…to determine a number of channels of the first result data so that a number of rows of the weight array is equal to a number of rows of the storage area” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further elements of math relationship / calculation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationship / calculation, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 9, the claim recites further limitation of “…to determine, as the number of channels of the first result data, a lesser value of a value, obtained by dividing the number of rows of the storage area by the n x n size, and a number of columns of the storage area” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further elements of math relationship / calculation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationship / calculation, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 10, the claim recites further limitation of “…wherein the number of rows of the weight array is calculated by multiplying the number of channels of the first result data by the n x n size.” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further elements of math relationship / calculation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationship / calculation, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 11, the claim recites further limitation of “…to determine a number of channels of the second result data so that a number of columns of the weight array is equal to a number of columns of the storage area” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further elements of math relationship / calculation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationship / calculation, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something.
With regards to claim 12, the claim recites further limitation of “…to determine, as the number of channels of the second result data, a lesser value of a number of rows of the storage area and a number of columns of the storage area” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further elements of math relationship / calculation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationship / calculation, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something.
With regards to claim 13, the claim recites further limitation of “…to perform a channel-wise quantization operation on the second convolution layer” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further elements of math relationship / calculation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationship / calculation, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something.
With regards to claim 14, the claim recites further limitation of “…to perform a layer-wise quantization operation on each of the first convolution layer and the third convolution layer” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further elements of math relationship / calculation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationship / calculation, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 include allowable subject matter since when reading the claims in light of the specification, as per, MPEP §2111.01 or Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Industries Inc., 199F.3d 1295, 1301, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1069, 1069 (Fed.Cir. 1999), none of the references of record alone or in combination disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in claims 1-19.
In interpreting the claims, in light of the specification filed on 9 January 2024, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior arts of record.
Regarding the amended independent claims, the primary reason for the allowance is the inclusion of the specific process / structure of cascaded convolution operation for neural networks using specific kernel size for multiple channels.
None of the cited prior art references, singly or in combination, fully teaches all limitations of independent claims 1 and 15.
Regarding the dependent claims, which include all the limitations of the independent claims, are also allowed.
The followings are references close to the invention claimed:
Jie et al., US-PGPUB NO.20210365726A1 [hereafter Jie] taches multi-channel data processing with neural network. However Jie does not teach the specific process / structure of cascaded convolution operation for neural networks using specific kernel size for multiple channels.
Zhang et al., US-PGPUB NO.20230259758A1 [hereafter Zhang] teaches convolution neural network with different kernel sizes. However Zhang does not teach the specific process / structure of cascaded convolution operation for neural networks using specific kernel size for multiple channels.
Cricri et al., US-PGPUB NO.20230269387A1 [hereafter Cricri] shows multi-channel neural network processing. However Cricri does not teach the specific process / structure of cascaded convolution operation for neural networks using specific kernel size for multiple channels.
He et al., “Deep residual learning for image recognition”, CVPR 2016 [hereafter He] shows deep convolution neural network processing with nxn kernels . However He does not teach the specific process / structure of cascaded convolution operation for neural networks using specific kernel size for multiple channels.
Chen et al., “Eyeriss: an energy-efficient reconfigurable accelerator for deep convolutional neural network”, IEEE journal of solid-state circuits, Vol.52, No.1, January 2017 [hereafter Chen] shows configurable processor for deep convolution neural work accelerator. However Chen does not teach the specific process / structure of cascaded convolution operation for neural networks using specific kernel size for multiple channels.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSU-CHANG LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3567. The fax number is 571-273-3567.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Omar Fernandez Rivas, can be reached 571-272-2589.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TSU-CHANG LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights