DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the application filed 11/17/2023.
Claims 1-28 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The Applicants’ Information Disclosure Statements (filed 11/17/2023 and 02/06/2025) have been received, entered into the record, and considered.
Drawings
3. The drawings filed 11/17/2023 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
4. The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations use the word “means,” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for partitioning...”, “means for simulating …”, and “means for selecting...; and “means for implementing...” in claims 19-27; “means for modifying …” in claim 24; and “means for generating …” in claim 26.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that there does not appear to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the named limitations.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19-27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As given above, the named limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function, rendering these limitations indefinite.
If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th Paragraph applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to add structure, material or acts that are sufficient to perform the claimed function; or
(b) Present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2181.
If Applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01 (o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 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.
Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “partitioning a graph representing a machine learning model into a plurality of subgraphs, each subgraph representing a portion of the machine learning model; “for each subgraph, simulating a plurality of execution paths based on permutations of using different processing unit types to execute portions of the subgraph and starting with each input source processing unit type selected from the different processing unit types”; “for each subgraph, selecting an execution path from the plurality of execution paths having a lowest cost”; and “implementing the machine learning model based on the selected execution path for each subgraph” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element “a processor-implemented” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “a processor-implemented”amounts to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations “partitioning the graph representing the machine learning model into the plurality of subgraphs comprises partitioning the graph representing the machine learning model into a first set of subgraphs associated with a first processing unit type of the different processing unit types and a second set of subgraphs associated with a second processing unit type of the different processing unit types” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations “the first set of subgraphs and the second set of subgraphs comprise graphs generated based on a common fusion boundary across a first processing system associated with the first processing unit type and a second processing system associated with the second processing unit type” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations “the common fusion boundary comprises a point in the machine learning model at which a subgraph in the first set of subgraphs and a corresponding subgraph in the second set of subgraphs output a common output for ingestion into a subsequent portion of the machine learning model” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations “simulating the plurality of execution paths for each subgraph comprises simulating an execution time for executing operations identified in the subgraph including context switching time for transitions from a first processing unit type of the different processing unit types to a second processing unit type of the different processing unit types” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the limitations “modifying a subgraph from the plurality of subgraphs based on combining consecutive portions of a subgraph representing operations for which execution should remain with the same processing unit type, wherein the plurality of execution paths are simulated based on the modified subgraph” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations “selecting the execution path for each subgraph comprises selecting the execution path having the lowest cost for each subgraph based on a backwards traversal of a graph representing the simulated plurality of execution paths for the plurality of subgraphs representing the machine learning model” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8 the limitations “generating an inference using the implemented machine learning model based on an input into the implemented machine learning model and the selected execution path for each subgraph” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “the different processing unit types comprise two or more of a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), or a neural processing unit (NPU)” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, the limitations “partition a graph representing a machine learning model into a plurality of subgraphs, each subgraph representing a portion of the machine learning model”; “for each subgraph, simulate a plurality of execution paths based on permutations of using different processing unit types to execute portions of the subgraph and starting with each input source processing unit type selected from the different processing unit types”; “for each subgraph, select an execution path from the plurality of execution paths having a lowest cost;”; and “implement the machine learning model based on the selected execution path for each subgraph” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements “a processing system”, “at least one memory having executable instructions”, and “one or more processors” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a processing system”, “at least one memory having executable instructions”, and “one or more processors” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 11-18, they correspond to claims 2-9. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations “means for partitioning a graph representing a machine learning model into a plurality of subgraphs, each subgraph representing a portion of the machine learning model”; “means for simulating, for each subgraph, a plurality of execution paths based on permutations of using different processing unit types to execute portions of the subgraph and starting with each input source processing unit type selected from the different processing unit types”; “means for selecting, for each subgraph, an execution path from the plurality of execution paths having a lowest cost”; and “means for implementing the machine learning model based on the selected execution path for each subgraph” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element “a processing system” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “a processing system” amounts to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 20-27, they correspond to claims 2-9. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 28, the limitations “partitioning a graph representing a machine learning model into a plurality of subgraphs, each subgraph representing a portion of the machine learning model”; “for each subgraph, simulating a plurality of execution paths based on permutations of using different processing unit types to execute portions of the subgraph and starting with each input source processing unit type selected from the different processing unit types”; “for each subgraph, selecting an execution path from the plurality of execution paths having a lowest cost; and”; and “implementing the machine learning model based on the selected execution path for each subgraph” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements “non-transitory computer-readable medium having executable instructions” and “one or more processors” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “non-transitory computer-readable medium having executable instructions” and “one or more processors” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cai (US 20210073625). The reference was cited by Applicant in the IDS filed 02/06/2025.
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
As to claim 1:
Cai teaches a processor-implemented method (Abstract: a method for adapting a computation graph of a machine learning model), comprising:
partitioning a graph representing a machine learning model into a plurality of subgraphs, each subgraph representing a portion of the machine learning model ( Figs.2-5, [0017]: provide a method and apparatus for adapting a computational graph, which can allow partitioning control dependency edges of a neural network model in an efficient way; [0043]: graph partitioner 320 is configured to partition a computation graph into a plurality of subgraphs... graph partitioner 320 can be configured to map the plurality of subgraphs onto multiple accelerators (e.g., target devices D1 to Dn in FIG. 2)...the computation graph to be divided by the graph partitioner 320 can be fed by the graph generator 310... the computation graph to be divided by the graph partitioner 320 can be a computation graph to which optimization techniques such as layer fusions, node clustering, etc. to maximize inference performance on accelerators have been applied; [0045]: graph partitioner 320 can partition a computation graph into multiple subgraphs that are executed on different accelerators based on the subgraph profiling information to optimize performance in executing the computation graph);
for each subgraph, simulating a plurality of execution paths based on permutations of using different processing unit types to execute portions of the subgraph and starting with each input source processing unit type selected from the different processing unit types ([0046]: graph partitioner 320 may take account of information including: 1) system and accelerator information, 2) operation profiling information per accelerator, and 3) subgraph profiling information per accelerator. The system information may include interconnect bandwidth information between accelerators or between a host unit and an accelerator. The accelerator information may include computing throughput information and memory bandwidth. The operation profiling information may include execution time or speed information and delay information of an accelerator for executing a certain operation such as a convolution, matrix multiplication, etc. The operation profiling information can be estimated by simulations or obtained by previous experiments on each of accelerators... operation profiling information for each of the accelerators can be stored for each of operations. The subgraph profiling information may include execution time or speed information and delay information for executing the subgraph on each accelerator. The subgraph profiling information can be estimated by simulations or obtained by previous experiments on each of accelerators);
for each subgraph, selecting an execution path from the plurality of execution paths having a lowest cost ([0045]: graph partitioner 320 can partition a computation graph into multiple subgraphs that are executed on different accelerators based on the subgraph profiling information to optimize performance in executing the computation graph... each subgraph can be assigned to a certain accelerator that can optimize performance of executing the subgraph); and
implementing the machine learning model based on the selected execution path for each subgraph ([0045]: graph partitioner 320 can partition a computation graph into multiple subgraphs that are executed on different accelerators based on the subgraph profiling information to optimize performance in executing the computation graph... each subgraph can be assigned to a certain accelerator that can optimize performance of executing the subgraph).
As to claim 2:
Cai teaches partitioning the graph representing the machine learning model into the plurality of subgraphs comprises partitioning the graph representing the machine learning model into a first set of subgraphs associated with a first processing unit type of the different processing unit types and a second set of subgraphs associated with a second processing unit type of the different processing unit types ([0044-0046]).As to claim 3:
Cai teaches the first set of subgraphs and the second set of subgraphs comprise graphs generated based on a common fusion boundary across a first processing system associated with the first processing unit type and a second processing system associated with the second processing unit type ([0043-0044]).
As to claim 4:
Cai teaches the common fusion boundary comprises a point in the machine learning model at which a subgraph in the first set of subgraphs and a corresponding subgraph in the second set of subgraphs output a common output for ingestion into a subsequent portion of the machine learning model ([0043-0044]).
As to claim 5:
Cai teaches simulating the plurality of execution paths for each subgraph comprises simulating an execution time for executing operations identified in the subgraph including context switching time for transitions from a first processing unit type of the different processing unit types to a second processing unit type of the different processing unit types (Figs.4-5, [0036], [0046], and [0049]).
As to claim 6:
Cai teaches comprising modifying a subgraph from the plurality of subgraphs based on combining consecutive portions of a subgraph representing operations for which execution should remain with the same processing unit type, wherein the plurality of execution paths are simulated based on the modified subgraph (Figs.4-5, [0036], [0046], and [0049]).
As to claim 7:
Cai teaches selecting the execution path for each subgraph comprises selecting the execution path having the lowest cost for each subgraph based on a backwards traversal of a graph representing the simulated plurality of execution paths for the plurality of subgraphs representing the machine learning model (Figs.4-5 and [0036-0037]).As to claim 8:
Cai teaches generating an inference using the implemented machine learning model based on an input into the implemented machine learning model and the selected execution path for each subgraph (Figs.4-5 and [0043-0044]).
As to claim 9:
Cai teaches the different processing unit types comprise two or more of a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), or a neural processing unit (NPU) ([0028] and [0036]).As to claims 10-18:
Refer to the discussion of claims 1-9 above, respectively, for rejections. Claims 10-18 are the same as claims 1-9, except claims 10-18 are system claims and claims 1-9 are method claims.
As to claims 19-27:
Refer to the discussion of claims 1-9 above, respectively, for rejections. Claims 19-27 are the same as claims 1-9, except claims 19-27 are system claims and claims 1-9 are method claims.
As to claim 28:
Refer to the discussion of claim 1 above for rejection. Claim 28 is the same as claim 1 except claim 28 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim and claim 1 is a method claim.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record, listed on PTO 892 provided to Applicant is considered to have relevancy to the claimed invention. Applicant should review each identified reference carefully before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the prior art.
Contact Information
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VAN H. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3765. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday from 9:00AM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, LEWIS BULLOCK, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3759. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/VAN H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights