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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There is no description on how to convert the fixed point output values to floating output values based on the output scaling factor.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 19 recites a “computer readable medium” which appears to cover both transitory and non-transitory embodiments. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is required to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceeding before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See ln re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 Aug. 24 2009; p. 2.
The Examiner suggests that the Applicant add the limitation “non-transitory” to the computer readable medium as recited in the claim(s) in order to properly render the claim(s) in statutory form in view of their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the originally filed specification. The Examiner also suggests that the specification may be amended to include the term ‘non-transitory computer readable medium” disclosed in the claims and specification to avoid a potential objection to the specification for a lack of antecedent basis of the claimed terminology.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-8, 10, 15-16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent 11755901-Deisher in view of US 20210064986 A1-Xi et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Xi:”).
Regarding claim 1, Deisher discloses a system (fig 6) comprising: a memory (Fig 6); and
a processor coupled to the memory (Fig. 6) and configured to:
a) obtain fixed-point output values from a layer of an artificial neural network (ANN) (column 2, lines 45-60, wherein quantizing the floating point values into integer values is interpreted as obtaining fixed point output values), wherein the layer includes fixed-point weights determined based on floating- point weights ([column 2, lines 45-60, wherein quantizing the floating point values into integer values is interpreted as obtaining fixed point output values based on floating point weights), and a weight scaling factor determined based on an output scaling factor (column 2, lines 45-67, wherein scaling factor)); ;
c) expand a range of floating-point output values (column 5, lines 25-30, column 6, lines 1-20); and
d) calculate a new output scaling factor based on the expanded range of floating- point output values (column 9, lines 45-65, wherein updated scaling factors); and
e) store the new output scaling factor to the memory (column 3, lines 50-60, storing scaling factors).
Xi fails to disclose converting the fixed-point output values to floating-point output values based on the output scaling factor
However, in the same field of endeavor, Xi discloses convert the fixed-point output values to floating-point output values based on the output scaling factor ([0071], wherein fixed points are converted into floating points)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Deisher to disclose convert the fixed-point output values to floating-point output values based on the output scaling factor as taught by Xi, to improving the overall performance and efficiency of the system ([0022], Xi).
Regarding claim 7, Deisher discloses the system of claim 1 wherein to obtain the fixed-point output values in step (a) the processor is further configured to input fixed-point input values to the ANN, configured with the fixed-point weights, to produce the fixed-point output values ([column 2, lines 45-60).
Regarding claim 8, Deisher discloses the system of claim 1 wherein before the processor obtains the fixed-point output values in step (a), the processor is further configured to determine the fixed-point weights, and wherein to determine the fixed-point weights, the processor is further configured to scale the floating- point weights based on the weight scaling factor (column 2, lines 45-67)).
Regarding claim 10, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 10.
Regarding claim 10, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 10.
Regarding claim 15, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 7 and are applicable for claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 8 and are applicable for claim 16.
Regarding claim 19, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 20.
Claim(s) 2-4, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent 11755901-Deisher in view of US 20210064986 A1-Xi et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Xi:”), in further view of Patent 12169769-Devangel et al (Hereinafter referred to s “Van”)
Regarding claim 2, Deisher discloses the system of claim 1 (See claim 1)
Deisher and Xi fail to disclose wherein before the processor converts the fixed-point output values to floating-point output values based on the output scaling factor in step (b), the processor is further configured to determine whether a saturation level of the fixed-point output values comprises an acceptable saturation.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Van discloses wherein before the processor converts the fixed-point output values to floating-point output values based on the output scaling factor in step (b), the processor is further configured to determine whether a saturation level of the fixed-point output values comprises an acceptable saturation (Fig 5, wherein determining the number of saturations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Deisher and Xi to disclose wherein before the processor converts the fixed-point output values to floating-point output values based on the output scaling factor in step (b), the processor is further configured to determine whether a saturation level of the fixed-point output values comprises an acceptable saturation as taught by Van, to improving the overall performance and efficiency of the system ([0022], Xi).
Regarding claim 3, Van discloses the system of claim 2 wherein to determine that the saturation level comprises the acceptable saturation, the processor is further configured to accept the fixed-point weights and refrain from performing steps (b) through (e) (Fig 5).
Regarding claim 4, Van discloses the system of claim 2 wherein to determine that the saturation level does not comprise the acceptable saturation, the processor is further configured to proceed with steps (b) through (e) (fig 5).
Regarding claim 11, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 2 and are applicable for claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 3 and are applicable for claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 4 and are applicable for claim 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 9, 13-14, 17-18 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LERON BECK whose telephone number is (571)270-1175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
LERON . BECK
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/LERON BECK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights