DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This application has been examined. Claims 1-32 are pending.
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 4-8, 12-18, and 25-32, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As for claims 4-8, 12-18, and 25-32, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Specifically, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, "A non-volatile computer-readable storage medium " is directed to a non-statutory matter. It is noted that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable storage medium (also called machine readable storage medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible medium and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable recording
medium, 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 In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d1346, 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.
A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both
transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the
claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claims.
Claims 1-32, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1. A computer processor comprising:
a plurality of internal execution partitions, each execution partition configured to execute a plurality of threads in parallel;
the computer processor configured to:
receive an instruction from a thread executing in a particular one of the execution partitions, the instruction comprising a thread index, a register specifier, and a destination operand; and
return in the destination operand a value of a register associated with the register specifier from one of the plurality of threads executing in the particular one of the execution partitions, wherein the register is a local register of a thread identified by the thread index.
Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a device including at least one step. The claim falls
within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03
Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes- Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG),
a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that
falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical
concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing
human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes
judicial exceptions in terms of "mental processes" because under it broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be "performed in the human
mind, or by a human using a pen and paper". See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitations of “receive an instruction from a thread executing in a particular one of the execution partitions, the instruction comprising a thread index, a register specifier, and a destination operand; and
“return in the destination operand a value of a register associated with the register specifier from one of the plurality of threads executing in the particular one of the execution partitions” limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of "a computer processor", and “the register is a local register of a thread identified by the thread index”. That is, other than reciting "a computer processor", and “the register is a local register of a thread identified by the thread index” nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the "a computer processor", and “the register is a local register of a thread identified by the thread index” language, the claim encompasses a user thinking and observing about data or information of a current situation is, and return a value or made a judgment in the user’s head what those value back should be. The mere nominal recitation of a computer processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Additionally, the receive and return steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a process that is practically performed in the human mind. For example, these limitations cover a user thinking about data, making an observation a current situation, and evaluation, or judgment on a particular set up condition, a value should be return back.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 1019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated
whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a
practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined
whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea
integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes
a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than
a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts
have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to
implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or
generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological
environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a
"practical application."
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite
additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a
practical application.
The claim recites the additional element of "a computer processor", “a plurality of internal execution partitions, each execution partition configured to execute a plurality of threads in parallel”, “wherein the register is a local register of a thread identified by the thread index” that performs the claim receive and return steps. The receive and return by a computer processor, a plurality of threads in parallel, and register are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the receive and return steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The computer processor is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer (the processor).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not
integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not
impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ides.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive Concept: -No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the claim (s) is to be evaluated as to
whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited
exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional
elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong two, the additional
elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the
exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies
here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic
computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at
Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B, MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-3, the claims do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional
elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-3 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-3, are ineligible under 35 U.S.C..101.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 4. A non-volatile computer-readable storage medium comprising an instruction that, when applied to a computer processor from a thread executing in particular one of a plurality of internal execution partitions of the computer processor, configures the computer processor to:
parse the instruction into a thread identifier, a register specifier, and a destination operand; and
return in the destination operand a value of a register associated with the register specifier from one of a plurality of threads executing in the particular one of the execution partitions, wherein the register is a local register of a thread identified by the thread identifier.
Step 1: Statutory category - No
The claim recites a non-volatile computer-readable storage medium and fails to recite any structure or method steps which would clearly direct the claim at statutory subject matter. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed invention could be purely software. Software per se is not patentable under 101; therefore, the claim invention does not falls
within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes- Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG),
a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that
falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical
concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing
human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes
judicial exceptions in terms of "mental processes" because under it broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be "performed in the human
mind, or by a human using a pen and paper". See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitations of “parse the instruction into a thread identifier, a register specifier, and a destination operand; and
“return in the destination operand a value of a register associated with the register specifier from one of a plurality of threads executing in the particular one of the execution partitions” limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of "a computer processor", and “the register is a local register of a thread identified by the thread identifier”. That is, other than reciting "a computer processor", and “the register is a local register of a thread identified by the thread identifier” nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the "a computer processor", and “the register is a local register of a thread identified by the thread identifier” language, the claim encompasses a user analyze and break down information or instruction, and return a value or made a judgment in the user’s head what those value back should be. The mere nominal recitation of a computer processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Additionally, the parse and return steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a process that is practically performed in the human mind. For example, these limitations cover a user thinking analyze information or instruction and evaluation, or judgment on a particular set up condition, a value should be return back.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 1019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated
whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a
practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined
whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea
integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes
a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than
a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts
have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to
implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or
generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological
environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a
"practical application."
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite
additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a
practical application.
The claim recites the additional element of "a computer processor", “…a thread executing in particular one of a plurality of internal execution partitions of the computer processor”, “wherein the register is a local register of a thread identified by the thread identifier” that performs the claim parse and return steps. The parse and return by a computer processor, thread identifier, and register are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the parse and return steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The computer processor is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer (the processor).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not
integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not
impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ides.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive Concept: -No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the claim (s) is to be evaluated as to
whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited
exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional
elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong two, the additional
elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the
exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies
here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic
computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at
Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B, MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 5-8, the claims do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional
elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 5-8 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 4.
Therefore, claims 4-8, are ineligible under 35 U.S.C..101.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 9. A computer processor configured to:
receive an instruction comprising a first operand, a second operand, and a destination operand;
the first operand comprising three parameters of a first object in FP8 format;
the second operand comprising three parameters of a second object in FP8 format; and
the computer processor configured to:
return in the destination operand a distance between the first object and the second object.
Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a device including at least one step. The claim falls
within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03
Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes- Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG),
a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that
falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical
concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing
human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes
judicial exceptions in terms of "mental processes" because under it broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be "performed in the human
mind, or by a human using a pen and paper". See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitations of “receive an instruction comprising a first operand, a second operand, and a destination operand;
“the first operand comprising three parameters of a first object in FP8 format”;
“the second operand comprising three parameters of a second object in FP8 format”; and
“return in the destination operand a distance between the first object and the second object” limitations, as drafted, are processes that,
under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the
limitation in the mind but for the recitation of "a computer processor". That is, other than reciting "a computer processor" nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the "a computer processor" language, the claim encompasses a user look at a first object position, a second object position and return, evaluate or calculate the distance between the first and second object position. The mere nominal recitation of a computer processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Additionally, the receive and return steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a process that is practically performed in the human mind. For example, these limitations cover a user standing on an area, making an observation a position of a first and a second object, and evaluate, or calculate a distance between the first and second object position.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 1019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated
whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a
practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined
whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea
integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes
a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than
a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts
have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to
implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or
generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological
environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a
"practical application."
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite
additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a
practical application.
The claim recites the additional element of "a computer processor" that performs the receive and return steps. The receive and return steps by a computer processor is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the estimate steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The computer processor is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer (the processor).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not
integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not
impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ides.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive Concept: -No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the claim (s) is to be evaluated as to
Whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong two, the additional
elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the
exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies
here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic
computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at
Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B, MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 10-11, the claims do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 10-11 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 9.
Therefore, claims 9-11, are ineligible under 35 U.S.C..101.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 12. A non-volatile computer-readable storage medium comprising an instruction that configures a computer processor to:
parse the instruction into a first operand defining three parameters in FP8 format;
parse the instruction into a second operand defining three parameters in FP8 format; and
return in the destination operand a distance between a first object defined by the three parameters of the first operand and a second object defined by the three parameters of the second operand.
Step 1: Statutory category - No
The claim recites a non-volatile computer-readable storage medium and fails to recite any structure or method steps which would clearly direct the claim at statutory subject matter. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed invention could be purely software. Software per se is not patentable under 101; therefore, the claim invention does not falls
within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes- Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG),
a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that
falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical
concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing
human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes
judicial exceptions in terms of "mental processes" because under it broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be "performed in the human
mind, or by a human using a pen and paper". See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitations of “parse the instruction into a first operand defining three parameters in FP8 format;
parse the instruction into a second operand defining three parameters in FP8 format; and
return in the destination operand a distance between a first object defined by the three parameters of the first operand and a second object defined by the three parameters of the second operand” limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of "a computer processor". That is, other than reciting "a computer processor" nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the "a computer processor" language, the claim encompasses a user look at a first position, orientation and direction or a first object, and a second position, orientation and direction of a second object, and return, evaluate or calculate the distance between the first and second object position, orientation and direction. The mere nominal recitation of a computer processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Additionally, the parse and return steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a process that is practically performed in the human mind. For example, these limitations cover a user standing on an area, making an observation a position, orientation and direction of a first and a second object, and evaluate, or calculate a distance between the first and second object.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 1019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated
whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a
practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined
whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea
integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes
a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than
a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts
have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to
implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or
generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological
environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a
"practical application."
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite
additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a
practical application.
The claim recites the additional element of "a computer processor" that performs the receive and return steps. The receive and return steps by a computer processor is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the estimate steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The computer processor is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer (the processor).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not
integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not
impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ides.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive Concept: -No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the claim (s) is to be evaluated as to
Whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong two, the additional
elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the
exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies
here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic
computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at
Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B, MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 13-18, the claims do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 13-18 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 12.
Therefore, claims 12-18, are ineligible under 35 U.S.C..101.
Claim 19, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 19. A computer processor configured to:
receive an instruction comprising a first register specifier and a destination operand; and
return in the destination operand an index of a thread associated with a maximal or minimal value of a local register associated with the first register specifier.
Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a device including at least one step. The claim falls
within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03
Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes- Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG),
a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that
falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical
concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing
human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes
judicial exceptions in terms of "mental processes" because under it broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be "performed in the human
mind, or by a human using a pen and paper". See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitations of “receive an instruction comprising a first register specifier and a destination operand; and
“return in the destination operand an index of a thread associated with a maximal or minimal value of a local register associated with the first register specifier.” limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of "a computer processor". That is, other than reciting "a computer processor" nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the "a computer processor", the claim encompasses a user receive two costs or time (minimum and maximum) value to spend in order to go to a specific location destination, and return or made a decision or judgment what is the least cost or more expensive cost value to go to the destination. The mere nominal recitation of a computer processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Additionally, the receive and return steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a process that is practically performed in the human mind. For example, these limitations cover a user thinking about cost and time data to spent to go to destination, and evaluation, or judgment which cost is less or more expensive value.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 1019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated
whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a
practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined
whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea
integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes
a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than
a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts
have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to
implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or
generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological
environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a
"practical application."
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite
additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a
practical application.
The claim recites the additional element of "a computer processor” that performs the claim receive and return steps. The receive and return by a computer processor are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the receive and return steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The computer processor is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer (the processor).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not
integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not
impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ides.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive Concept: -No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the claim (s) is to be evaluated as to
whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited
exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional
elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong two, the additional
elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the
exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies
here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic
computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at
Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B, MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 20-24, the claims do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 20-24 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 19.
Therefore, claims 19-24, are ineligible under 35 U.S.C..101.
Claim 25, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 25, A non-volatile computer-readable storage medium comprising an instruction that configures a computer processor to:
parse the instruction into a first register specifier and a destination operand; and
return in the destination operand an index of a thread associated with a maximal or minimal value of a local register associated with the first register specifier.
Step 1: Statutory category - No
The claim recites a non-volatile computer-readable storage medium and fails to recite any structure or method steps which would clearly direct the claim at statutory subject matter. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed invention could be purely software. Software per se is not patentable under 101; therefore, the claim invention does not falls
within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes- Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG),
a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that
falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical
concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing
human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes
judicial exceptions in terms of "mental processes" because under it broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be "performed in the human
mind, or by a human using a pen and paper". See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitations of “parse the instruction into a first register specifier and a destination operand; and return in the destination operand an index of a thread associated with a maximal or minimal value of a local register associated with the first register specifier.” limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of "a computer processor". That is, other than reciting "a computer processor" nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the "a computer processor", the claim encompasses a user analyze or break down two costs or time (minimum and maximum) value, and return or made a decision or judgment what is the least cost or more expensive cost value. The mere nominal recitation of a computer processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Additionally, the parse and return steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a process that is practically performed in the human mind. For example, these limitations cover a user analyze about cost and time data to spent to go to destination, and evaluation, or judgment which cost is less or more expensive value.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 1019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated
whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a
practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined
whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea
integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes
a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than
a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts
have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to
implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or
generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological
environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a
"practical application."
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite
additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a
practical application.
The claim recites the additional element of "a computer processor” that performs the claim receive and return steps. The parse and return by a computer processor are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the receive and return steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The computer processor is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer (the processor).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not
integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not
impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ides.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive Concept: -No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the claim (s) is to be evaluated as to
whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited
exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional
elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong two, the additional
elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the
exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies
here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic
computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at
Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B, MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 26-32, the claims do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 26-32 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 25.
Therefore, claims 25-32, are ineligible under 35 U.S.C..101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-32, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sun et al. (US 2024/0246239 A1).
As per claim 1, Sun et al. disclose a computer processor comprising: a plurality of internal execution partitions, each execution partition configured to execute a plurality of threads in parallel; the computer processor configured to: receive an instruction from a thread executing in a particular one of the execution partitions, the instruction comprising a thread index, a register specifier, and a destination operand (see at least para. [0007-0009] disclose a process for generating a picking plan for a robotic picking arm. Receive an input or setting comprising a desired picking characteristic may be obtained (e.g., stored, received, determined from other input, etc.). A graph may be generated based on the image of the work environment. A plurality of connections on the graph may be identified based on a plurality of relative locations, positions, and/or poses corresponding to each of the plurality of objects); and return in the destination operand a value of a register associated with the register specifier from one of the plurality of threads executing in the particular one of the execution partitions, wherein the register is a local register of a thread identified by the thread index (see at least [0008-0009], [0039-0044], and algorithms 1, and 3, all para. disclose a plurality of clusters from the plurality of connections may be extracted. A plurality of ranks corresponding to each of the plurality of clusters may be determined using a rank algorithm. A picking plan may be generated and outputted to move the robotic device).
As per claims 2-3, Sun et al. disclose each execution partition is configured to execute up to eight threads in parallel, and a plurality of register collectors each associated with one of the execution partitions (see at least [0065] and algorithm 3, describe the procedure to sample picking poses on a given cluster for 12 degree. For each rotation, the first four boundaries of the EGA were picked to cover the cluster using the GetBound subroutine).
As per claim 4, Sun et al. disclose a non-volatile computer-readable storage medium comprising an instruction that, when applied to a computer processor from a thread executing in particular one of a plurality of internal execution partitions of the computer processor, configures the computer processor to: parse the instruction into a thread identifier, a register specifier, and a destination operand (see at least [0030-0031] disclose analyze to determines a desired picking characteristic. In some examples, a user may input a desired characteristic, or a characteristic may be loaded into a system bases upon a given automation process. The picking characteristic can be a specific picking criteria, or a more general desired approach or a goal. For example, the desired approach or goal may be to pick as many objects as possible in each grasping motion, always pick the same number of objects, use as few grasps as possible, only pick upside down objects, only pick objects indicated as important, and other examples); and return in the destination operand a value of a register associated with the register specifier from one of a plurality of threads executing in the particular one of the execution partitions, wherein the register is a local register of a thread identified by the thread identifier (see at least [0039-0044] disclose process output a picking plan).
As per claim 5, Sun et al. disclose apply the value of the register returned in the destination operand in a collision detection operation for a robotic manipulator (see at least [0038] and algorithm 4 disclose check collision Subroutine).
As per claim 6, Sun et al. disclose apply the value of the register returned in the destination operand as a sphere specification (see at least [0033-0034] disclose generates a graph based on the image of the work environment….the graph may comprise location information of each object in the work environment; and para. [0051-0056] disclose neighbor graph generation algorithm, the algorithm first segments objects in the bin from the background, detects their contours and then estimates their centers. The algorithm then treats each object as a node and connect it with its neighbor nodes within a predefined distance, the node represent sphere specification as claimed).
As per claim 7, Sun et al. disclose apply the value of the register returned in the destination operand to detect a collision between two spheres (see at least [0050-0056], and algorithm 4).
As per claim 8, Sun et al. disclose apply the value of the register returned in the destination operand in a distance calculation (see at least [0033-0034] disclose distance values between objects and each object’s location information can be used to identify the connections).
As per claim 9, Sun et al. disclose a computer processor configured to: receive an instruction comprising a first operand, a second operand, and a destination operand; the first operand comprising three parameters of a first object in FP8 format; the second operand comprising three parameters of a second object in FP8 format (see at least [0033] disclose obtains coordinates associated with locations within the work environment, as well as coordinates associated with the location of the robotic device within the work environment); and the computer processor configured to: return in the destination operand a distance between the first object and the second object (see at least [0034] disclose distance values between objects and each object’s location information can be used to identify the connections).
.As per claim 10, Sun et al. disclose the first operand comprises a center point and radius of a first sphere and the second operand comprises a center point and radius of a second sphere, and the distance is between a surface of the first sphere and a surface of the second sphere (see at least [0051-0054] disclose algorithm for object center detection and graph generation).
As per claim 11, Sun et al. disclose apply a RELU operation to the distance before returning it in the destination operand (see at least [0068]).
As per claim 12, Sun et al. disclose a non-volatile computer-readable storage medium comprising an instruction that configures a computer processor to: parse the instruction into a first operand defining three parameters in FP8 format; parse the instruction into a second operand defining three parameters in FP8 format (see at least [0033] disclose obtains coordinates associated with locations within the work environment, as well as coordinates associated with the location of the robotic device within the work environment); and return in the destination operand a distance between a first object defined by the three parameters of the first operand and a second object defined by the three parameters of the second operand (see at least [0034] disclose distance values between objects and each object’s location information can be used to identify the connections).
As per claim 13, Sun et al. disclose the first operand comprises a center point and radius of a first sphere and the second operand comprises a center point and radius of a second sphere (see at least [0051-0054] disclose algorithm for object center detection and graph generation).
As per claim 14, Sun et al. disclose apply the distance returned in the destination operand in a collision detection operation for a robotic manipulator (see at least [0038] and algorithm 4 disclose check collision Subroutine).
As per claim 15, Sun et al. disclose apply the distance returned in the destination operand to detect a collision between the first sphere and the second sphere (see at least [0033-0034] and algorithm 4).
As per claim 16, Sun et al. disclose a third parameter of the first operand and a third parameter of the second operand are each set to zero (see at least [0072] disclose if no pose predicts on k, then the max_confidence will be set as 0).
As per claim 17, Sun et al. disclose parse the instruction into a third operand defining three parameters in FP8 format (see at least [0033] disclose obtains coordinates associated with locations within the work environment, as well as coordinates associated with the location of the robotic device within the work environment); and return in the destination operand two distance values for two distinct pairings of the first object, the second object, and a third object defined by the three parameters of the third operand; and the computer processor configured to: return in the destination operand a distance between the first object and the second object (see at least [0034] disclose distance values between objects and each object’s location information can be used to identify the connections).
As per claim 18, Sun et al. disclose parse the instruction into a third operand defining three parameters in FP8 format (see at least [0033] disclose obtains coordinates associated with locations within the work environment, as well as coordinates associated with the location of the robotic device within the work environment); and return in the destination operand three distance values for three distinct pairings of the first object, the second object, and a third object defined by the three parameters of the third operand (see at least [0034] disclose distance values between objects and each object’s location information can be used to identify the connections).
As per claim 19, Sun et al. disclose computer processor configured to: receive an instruction comprising a first register specifier and a destination operand; and return in the destination operand an index of a thread associated with a maximal or minimal value of a local register associated with the first register specifier (see at least [0071-0072] algorithm 4, Max_Conf Subroutine gets the max_confidence for all local images that predict to pick k objects).
As per claim 20, Sun et al. disclose return in the destination operand an index of a thread associated with a maximal or minimal value of a local register associated with the second register specifier (see at least [0071-0072] algorithm 4, Max_Conf Subroutine gets the max_confidence for all local images that predict to pick k objects).
As per claim 21, Sun et al. disclose return in the destination operand an index of a thread associated with a maximal or minimal value of local registers associated with both of the first register specifier and the second register specifier (see at least [0071-0072] algorithm 4, Max_Conf Subroutine gets the max_confidence for all local images that predict to pick k objects).
As per claims 22-23, Sun et al. disclose wherein the index is scoped to a warp of threads; the index is scoped to a subset of threads of a warp assigned to an execution partition of the computer processor (see agorithms 1-4, show subset of threads of a warp assigned to an execution partition of the computer processor).
As per claim 24, Sun et al, disclose a format specifier for values stored in local registers specified by the first register specifier (see at least algorithm 4, check collision formation specifier).
As per claim 25, Sun et al. disclose a non-volatile computer-readable storage medium comprising an instruction that configures a computer processor to: parse the instruction into a first register specifier and a destination operand; and return in the destination operand an index of a thread associated with a maximal or minimal value of a local register associated with the first register specifier (see at least [0071-0072] algorithm 4, Max_Conf Subroutine gets the max_confidence for all local images that predict to pick k objects).
As per claim 26, Sun et al. disclose apply the index returned in the destination operand in a collision detection operation for a robotic manipulator (see at least [0038] and algorithm 4 disclose check collision Subroutine).
As per claim 27, Sun et al. disclose apply the index returned in the destination operand to detect a collision between two spheres (see at least [0050-0056], and algorithm 4).
As per claim 28, Sun et al. disclose return in the destination operand an index of a thread associated with a maximal or minimal value stored in a local register associated with the second register specifier (see at least [0071-0072] algorithm 4, Max_Conf Subroutine gets the max_confidence for all local images that predict to pick k objects).
As per claim 29, Sun et al. disclose the instruction further comprises a second register specifier and, when applied to the computer processor, further configures the computer processor to: return in the destination operand an index of a thread associated with a maximal or minimal value stored in local registers associated with both of the first register specifier and the second register specifier (see at least [0071-0072] algorithm 4, Max_Conf Subroutine gets the max_confidence for all local images that predict to pick k objects).
As per claims 30-31, Sun et al. disclose wherein the index is scoped to a warp of threads.wherein the index is scoped to a subset of threads of a warp assigned to an execution partition of the computer processor (see agorithms 1-4, show subset of threads of a warp assigned to an execution partition of the computer processor).
As per claim 32, Sun et al. disclose wherein the instruction further comprises a format specifier for values stored in local registers specified by the first register specifier (see at least algorithm 4, check collision formation specifier).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure;
. Narang et al. (US 2023/0321822 A1)
. Drumwright (US 2021/0031368 A1)
. Fu et al. (US 2024/0134719 A1)
. Drabinski et al. (US 2023/0215091 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALENA TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM-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, ADAM MOTT can be reached at 571-270-5376. 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.
/DALENA TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657