DETAILED ACTION
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 original application filed on 3/22/2024. The application is a Continuation application of Issued Patent No. 11,989,640 filed on 11/21/2022, which is a Continuation application of Issued Patent No. 11,537,838 filed on 5/4/2018.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 10-18 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “generating, based on the kernel data, kernel coefficients to be provided to a plurality of MAD circuits of a neural engine circuit” (emphasis added). The term “MAD circuits” in this limitation is an undefined acronym. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted to mean “generating, based on the kernel data, kernel coefficients to be provided to a plurality of multiply-add (MAD) circuits of a neural engine circuit” (emphasis added). Dependent claims 11-18 depend on indefinite claim 10 and are also rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) by virtue of this dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of the claims will follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (“2019 PEG”).
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined in Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If it is determined at step 2A, Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 1
Step 1: The claim recites a neural engine circuit; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
generate, based on the kernel data, kernel coefficients to be provided to the plurality of MAD circuits: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of generating kernel or filter coefficients based on kernel or filter data, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. For example, one can practically and mentally generate a coefficient or value for a kernel or filter based on kernel or filter information, and this information is then processed downstream.
wherein a number of the plurality of MAD circuits is selected for activation based on a number of the kernel coefficients: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of selecting circuits for activation based on a number of kernel coefficients, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. For example, one can practically and mentally select a specific circuit based on two kernel coefficients.
perform convolution operations based on input data and the kernel coefficients to generate output data: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mathematical concept of performing convolution operations based on input data and kernel coefficients, which is performed through mathematical computation.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite any additional limitations which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements consist of “a plurality of multiply-add (MAD) circuits; and a kernel extract circuit configured to”, “receive kernel data”, “store the kernel data in a kernel memory of the kernel extract circuit”, and “wherein the neural engine circuit is configured to”.
The additional elements of “a plurality of multiply-add (MAD) circuits; and a kernel extract circuit configured to” and “wherein the neural engine circuit is configured to” amount to generic computer components or circuits used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional elements amount to no 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 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements “receive kernel data”, “store the kernel data in a kernel memory of the kernel extract circuit” are insignificant extra-solution activities required for any uses of the abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Thus, even when viewed individually and as an ordered combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the claim is thus directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional elements of “a plurality of multiply-add (MAD) circuits; and a kernel extract circuit configured to” and “wherein the neural engine circuit is configured to” amount to generic computer components or circuits used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional elements amount to no 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 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements “receive kernel data”, “store the kernel data in a kernel memory of the kernel extract circuit” are insignificant extra-solution activities required for any uses of the abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i); “Storing and retrieving information in memory”).
Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 2
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “wherein, to receive the kernel data, the kernel extract circuit is configured to receive the kernel data in a compressed format” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 3
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
wherein, to generate the kernel coefficients, the kernel extract circuit is configured to decompress the kernel data in the compressed format and generate the kernel coefficients based on the decompressed kernel data: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of decompressing kernel or filter data, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. For example, one can practically and mentally decompress information.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 4
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “wherein, to receive the kernel data, the kernel extract circuit is configured to receive the kernel data in an uncompressed format” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 5
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “wherein the neural engine circuit is included in a neural processor circuit” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 6
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “wherein, to receive the kernel data, the kernel extract circuit is configured to receive the kernel data from a kernel direct memory access (DMA) circuit of the neural processor circuit” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 7
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
a determination that the neural engine circuit is not utilized for a processing task: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of determining that a circuit is not being used for a task, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. For example, one can practically and mentally determine whether a circuit is not working for a task.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “wherein the neural engine circuit is configured to deactivate” amount to no 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 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 8
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “wherein, to deactivate the neural engine circuit, the neural engine circuit is placed in a power saving mode” amount to no 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 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 9
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “wherein, to deactivate the neural engine circuit, the neural engine circuit is powered off” amount to no 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 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 10
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
generating, based on the kernel data, kernel coefficients to be provided to a plurality of MAD circuits of a neural engine circuit: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of generating kernel or filter coefficients based on kernel or filter data, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. For example, one can practically and mentally generate a coefficient or value for a kernel or filter based on kernel or filter information, and this information is then processed downstream.
wherein a number of the plurality of MAD circuits is selected for activation based on a number of the kernel coefficients: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of selecting circuits for activation based on a number of kernel coefficients, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. For example, one can practically and mentally select a specific circuit based on two kernel coefficients.
perform convolution operations based on input data and the kernel coefficients to generate output data: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mathematical concept of performing convolution operations based on input data and kernel coefficients, which is performed through mathematical computation.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite any additional limitations which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements consist of “a plurality of multiply-add (MAD) circuits; and a kernel extract circuit configured to”, “receiving kernel data”, “storing the kernel data in a kernel memory of a kernel extract circuit”, and “wherein the neural engine circuit is configured to”.
The additional elements of “a plurality of multiply-add (MAD) circuits”, “a kernel extract circuit” and “wherein the neural engine circuit is configured to” amount to generic computer components or circuits used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional elements amount to no 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 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements “receiving kernel data”, “storing the kernel data in a kernel memory of the kernel extract circuit” are insignificant extra-solution activities required for any uses of the abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Thus, even when viewed individually and as an ordered combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the claim is thus directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional elements of “a plurality of multiply-add (MAD) circuits”, “a kernel extract circuit” and “wherein the neural engine circuit is configured to” amount to generic computer components or circuits used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional elements amount to no 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 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements “receiving kernel data”, “storing the kernel data in a kernel memory of the kernel extract circuit” are insignificant extra-solution activities required for any uses of the abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i); “Storing and retrieving information in memory”).
Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claims 11-18
Claims 11-18 recite a method (step 1: a process) to perform the steps of claims 2-9, respectively, without any additional elements that integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea by itself and are thus rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claims 2-9, respectively.
Claim 19
Step 1: The claim recites a system; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
generate, based on the first kernel data, first kernel coefficients to be provided to the first plurality of MAD circuits: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of generating kernel or filter coefficients based on kernel or filter data, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. For example, one can practically and mentally generate a coefficient or value for a kernel or filter based on kernel or filter information, and this information is then processed downstream.
wherein a number of the first plurality of MAD circuits is selected for activation based on a number of the first kernel coefficients: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of selecting circuits for activation based on a number of kernel coefficients, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. For example, one can practically and mentally select a specific circuit based on two kernel coefficients.
generate, based on the second kernel data, second kernel coefficients to be provided to the second plurality of MAD circuits: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of generating kernel or filter coefficients based on kernel or filter data, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. For example, one can practically and mentally generate a coefficient or value for a kernel or filter based on kernel or filter information, and this information is then processed downstream.
wherein a number of the second plurality of MAD circuits is selected for activation based on a number of the second kernel coefficients: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of selecting circuits for activation based on a number of kernel coefficients, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. For example, one can practically and mentally select a specific circuit based on two kernel coefficients.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite any additional limitations which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements consist of “a first neural engine circuit, comprising: a first plurality of multiply-add (MAD) circuits; and a first kernel extract circuit configured to”, “receive first kernel data”, “store the first kernel data in a first kernel memory of the first kernel extract circuit”, “a second neural engine circuit, comprising: a second plurality of multiply-add (MAD) circuits; and a second kernel extract circuit configured to”, “receive second kernel data”, and “store the second kernel data in a second kernel memory of the second kernel extract circuit;”.
The additional elements of “a first neural engine circuit, comprising: a first plurality of multiply-add (MAD) circuits; and a first kernel extract circuit configured to” and “a second neural engine circuit, comprising: a second plurality of multiply-add (MAD) circuits; and a second kernel extract circuit configured to” amount to generic computer components or circuits used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional elements amount to no 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 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements “receive first kernel data”, “store the first kernel data in a first kernel memory of the first kernel extract circuit”, “receive second kernel data”, and “store the second kernel data in a second kernel memory of the second kernel extract circuit;” are insignificant extra-solution activities required for any uses of the abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Thus, even when viewed individually and as an ordered combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the claim is thus directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional elements of “a first neural engine circuit, comprising: a first plurality of multiply-add (MAD) circuits; and a first kernel extract circuit configured to” and “a second neural engine circuit, comprising: a second plurality of multiply-add (MAD) circuits; and a second kernel extract circuit configured to” amount to generic computer components or circuits used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional elements amount to no 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 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements “receive first kernel data”, “store the first kernel data in a first kernel memory of the first kernel extract circuit”, “receive second kernel data”, and “store the second kernel data in a second kernel memory of the second kernel extract circuit;” are insignificant extra-solution activities required for any uses of the abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i); “Storing and retrieving information in memory”).
Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 20
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “wherein the first neural engine circuit and the second neural engine circuit are selectively activatable or deactivatable” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Conclusion
The claims have been searched but no prior art was uncovered.
The closest prior art of record Chen et al. (“Eyeriss: An Energy-Efficient Reconfigurable Accelerator for Deep Convolutional Neural Networks”) discloses an accelerator for state-of-the-art deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) that optimizes for the energy efficiency of the entire system, including the accelerator chip and off-chip DRAM, for various CNN shapes by reconfiguring the architecture, but fails to explicitly disclose generate, based on the kernel data, kernel coefficients to be provided to the plurality of MAD circuits, wherein a number of the plurality of MAD circuits is selected for activation based on a number of the kernel coefficients, all taught in the context of the remaining claim limitations and when considered as a whole, as claimed.
Further, Andri et al. (“YodaNN1: An Architecture for Ultra-Low Power Binary-Weight CNN Acceleration”) discloses another CNN accelerator that makes use of kernel information and performs multiply accumulate operations, but fails to explicitly disclose generate, based on the kernel data, kernel coefficients to be provided to the plurality of MAD circuits, wherein a number of the plurality of MAD circuits is selected for activation based on a number of the kernel coefficients, all taught in the context of the remaining claim limitations and when considered as a whole, as claimed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chen et al., “Eyeriss: An Energy-Efficient Reconfigurable Accelerator for Deep Convolutional Neural Networks”, Nov. 8, 2016, IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits ( Volume: 52, Issue: 1, pp. 127-138.
Andri et al., “YodaNN1: An Architecture for Ultra-Low Power Binary-Weight CNN Acceleration”, Feb. 24, 2017, arXiv:1606.05487v4, pp. 1-14.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brent Hoover whose telephone number is (303)297-4403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5 MST.
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, Abdullah Kawsar can be reached at 571-270-3169. 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.
/BRENT JOHNSTON HOOVER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2127
Prosecution Insights