DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 are allowed. Claims 11-20 are allowable over the prior art, but are rejected under §§ 101 and 112 as outlined below.
Examiner Gonzales attempted to reach attorney of record Sam Yip by telephone on 8/3/26 to resolve the apparent typographical error in claim 11; however, there was no answer and no voicemail box.
The Examiner suggests the following claim amendment, which would overcome all outstanding rejections under §§ 101 and 112.
Claim 11: A method of [[An]] enhancing speed performance of artificial intelligence neural networks …”
Claim Rejection - 35 USC § 101
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. 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 11 is rejected under §101 because it does not clearly fall within one of the statutory categories of invention (ie a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter).
Claim Rejection - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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.
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Each of these claims recites “The method of” their respected parent claim. However, independent claim 11 does not recite a method. Therefore, each of dependent claims 12-20 (which depends directly or indirectly upon claim 11) is indefinite.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
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.
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):
(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”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), 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), because the claim limitations 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 limitations are (in claim 1): “an outcome module”.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Allowable Subject Matter
Below are the closest cited references, each of which disclose various aspects of the claimed invention:
Chollet discloses a deep learning technique aimed at achieving higher efficiency using low-rank approximations to exploit redundancy in filters and reduce FLOP requirements. (Chollet, François. "Xception: Deep learning with depthwise separable convolutions." Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2017. Cited by Applicant in IDS dated 2/1/24.)
Huang discloses a deep learning technique aimed at achieving higher efficiency by exploiting redundancy in filters and reducing FLOP requirements. (Huang, Gao, et al. "Condensenet: An efficient densenet using learned group convolutions." Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2018. Cited by Applicant in IDS dated 2/1/24.)
Li discloses a survey of convolutional neural networks. However, it does not mention partial convolutions techniques. (Li, Zewen, et al. "A survey of convolutional neural networks: analysis, applications, and prospects." IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems 33.12 (2021): 6999-7019.)
Chen is an inventor disclosure which is not prior art under §102; it substantially overlaps the Applicant’s specification and claims. (Chen, Jierun, et al. "Run, don't walk: chasing higher FLOPS for faster neural networks." Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2023. Published online 3 June 2023.)
However, none of the prior art references of record—alone or in combination—disclose or suggest the combined features recited in the independent claims, including specifically (for claim 1):
a fast network module, wherein a fast neural network comprising multiple fast neural network blocks with at least one partial convolution (PConv) layer and at least two pointwise convolution (PWConv) layers are integrated in the fast network module;
a data input module responsible for loading and providing input data to the fast network module, wherein the PConv layer in each of the fast neural network blocks is applied for partial convolution of the input data with achieving standard convolution operations on partial channels while preserving other channels unaffected and selectively convolves only a portion of input channels by leveraging redundant information in feature maps, and wherein the two PWConv layers following the PConv layer in each of the fast neural network blocks are configured to transform and integrate features output from the PConv layer.
Independent claim 11 is allowable for the same reason as claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vincent Gonzales whose telephone number is (571) 270-3837. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. MT. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Miranda Huang, can be reached at (571) 270-7092.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the USPTO Patent Center.
/Vincent Gonzales/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2124
Prosecution Insights