DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action based on the application submitted on April 29, 2024.
Claims 1-18 are pending.
For clarity of the prosecution history record, it is noted by the Examiner that Claim 13 recites the limitation “receiving a multi-layered computational graph comprising a modular operation graph, the modular operation graph comprising a set of modular operations” twice. Thus, it appears that the repeated limitation is the result of a copy-and-paste error and consequently, it is not being examined on the merits. Examiner kindly asks the Applicant to remove the repeated limitation in the response to the instant Office action.
In the interest of facilitating compact prosecution, the Examiner kindly asks the Applicant’s representative to authorize Internet communications with the Examiner by submitting Form PTO/SB/439 using Patent Center.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
For clarity of the prosecution history record, Claims 13-18 are directed to a machine-storage medium. It is noted that the Applicant’s specification expressly states that “[t]he terms ‘machine-storage media,’ ‘computer-storage media,’ and ‘device-storage media’ specifically exclude carrier waves, modulated data signals, and other such media, some of which are covered under the term ‘signal medium’” (page 47, paragraph [0192]). Thus, such statement appears to provide a special definition that explicitly excludes a machine-storage medium from being interpreted as transitory signals per se. Therefore, Claims 13-18 can rely on the special definition and are eligible subject matter under § 101.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: FUSION FOR COMPILING MULTI-LAYERED COMPUTATIONAL GRAPHS.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 26, paragraph [0110] of the specification contains a typographical error:
“During transition 534 from s modular operation graph 510” should read -- During transition 534 from a modular operation graph 510 --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 5, 10-12, 15, 17, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 17, and 18 recite “the operation.” It should read -- the operation of the first modular operation generator graph --.
Claims 10-12, 15, and 18 contain a typographical error: “wherein,” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 recite the limitation “the modular operation generator graph.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner subsequently interprets this limitation as reading “the first modular operation generator graph” for the purpose of further examination.
Claims 2-6 depend on Claim 1. Therefore, Claims 2-6 suffer the same deficiency as Claim 1.
Claims 8-12 depend on Claim 7. Therefore, Claims 8-12 suffer the same deficiency as Claim 7.
Claims 14-18 depend on Claim 13. Therefore, Claims 14-18 suffer the same deficiency as Claim 13.
Claims 3, 9, and 16 recite the limitation “the kernels.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner subsequently interprets Claims 3, 9, and 16 as depending on Claims 2, 8, and 14, respectively, for the purpose of further examination. Note that such dependency order would provide sufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 1 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a computer-implemented method, which is a process (a series of steps or acts), and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 1 recites the limitations:
(a) generating a first modular operation generator graph using the modular operation graph and one or more sets of kernels; and
(b) generating a second modular operation generator graph comprising one or more fused operations by performing one or more fusions of two or more operations of the modular operation generator graph.
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting, in the preamble:
(1) [a] computer-implemented method.
Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) in the context of the claim encompasses a human observing a modular operation graph and one or more sets of kernels in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to generate a first modular operation generator graph. And the limitation (b) in the context of the claim encompasses a human observing operations of the first modular operation generator graph in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to generate a second modular operation generator graph. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element, in the preamble:
(1) [a] computer-implemented method.
The additional element (1) is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The computer is used as a tool to perform the receiving and generating steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(2) receiving a multi-layered computational graph comprising a modular operation graph, the modular operation graph comprising a set of modular operations.
The additional element (2) is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and thus, is an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering, and, as such, the additional element does not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional element amounts to necessary data gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(3) generating an executable object using the second modular operation generator graph comprising the one or more fused operations.
The additional element (3) fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional element recites only the idea of generating an executable object without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the generating solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of generating an executable object with no restriction on how the generating is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the generating, and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional element, in the preamble:
(1) [a] computer-implemented method.
The additional element (1) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(2) receiving a multi-layered computational graph comprising a modular operation graph, the modular operation graph comprising a set of modular operations.
The additional element (2) simply appends a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer function of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activities. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to receive a multi-layered computational graph. Therefore, the limitation remains an insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(3) generating an executable object using the second modular operation generator graph comprising the one or more fused operations.
The additional element (3) does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of generating an executable object with no restriction on how the generating is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the generating, and does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components, an insignificant extra-solution activity, and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-6 are dependent on Claim 1, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein generating the second modular operation generator graph comprises:
(b) selecting kernels from a set of system kernels and a set of user supplied kernels using definitions of the set of modular operations of the modular operation graph.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 3 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein selecting the kernels further uses metadata of a set of user supplied kernels.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 4 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein a kernel of a set of user supplied kernels is treated as a first class object during a compilation process.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 5 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein an operation of the first modular operation generator graph comprises one or more prologue functions defining a loading of input data into the operation.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 6 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein an operation of the first modular operation generator graph comprises one or more epilogue functions defining a writing of output data of the operation.
Claims 2 and 3 recite further mental steps which can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper and thus, fail to make the claim any less abstract (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claims 4-6 recite further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed and thus, fail to add an inventive concept to the claims (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) and thus, are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Thus, Claims 2-6 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 1 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, Claims 1-6 are not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
<<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>>
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 7 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Claim 7 is directed to a machine, which falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 7 recites the limitations:
(a) generating a first modular operation generator graph using the modular operation graph and one or more sets of kernels; and
(b) generating a second modular operation generator graph comprising one or more fused operations by performing one or more fusions of two or more operations of the modular operation generator graph.
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
(1) [a] machine, comprising:
(2) at least one processor; and
(3) at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the machine to perform operations comprising.
Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) in the context of the claim encompasses a human observing a modular operation graph and one or more sets of kernels in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to generate a first modular operation generator graph. And the limitation (b) in the context of the claim encompasses a human observing operations of the first modular operation generator graph in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to generate a second modular operation generator graph. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) [a] machine, comprising:
(2) at least one processor; and
(3) at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the machine to perform operations comprising.
The additional elements (1) to (3) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The machine, at least one processor, and at least one memory are used as a tool to perform the receiving and generating steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(4) receiving a multi-layered computational graph comprising a modular operation graph, the modular operation graph comprising a set of modular operations.
The additional element (4) is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and thus, is an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering, and, as such, the additional element does not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional element amounts to necessary data gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(5) generating an executable object using the second modular operation generator graph comprising the one or more fused operations.
The additional element (5) fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional element recites only the idea of generating an executable object without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the generating solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of generating an executable object with no restriction on how the generating is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the generating, and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) [a] machine, comprising:
(2) at least one processor; and
(3) at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the machine to perform operations comprising.
The additional elements (1) to (3) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(4) receiving a multi-layered computational graph comprising a modular operation graph, the modular operation graph comprising a set of modular operations.
The additional element (4) simply appends a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer function of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activities. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to receive a multi-layered computational graph. Therefore, the limitation remains an insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(5) generating an executable object using the second modular operation generator graph comprising the one or more fused operations.
The additional element (5) does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of generating an executable object with no restriction on how the generating is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the generating, and does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components, an insignificant extra-solution activity, and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 8-12 are dependent on Claim 7, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 7.
Claim 8 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein generating the second modular operation generator graph comprises:
(b) selecting kernels from a set of system kernels and a set of user supplied kernels using definitions of the set of modular operations of the modular operation graph.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 9 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein selecting the kernels further uses metadata of a set of user supplied kernels.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 10 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein a kernel of a set of user supplied kernels is treated as a first class object during a compilation process.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 11 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein an operation of the first modular operation generator graph comprises one or more prologue functions defining a loading of input data into the operation.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 12 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein an operation of the first modular operation generator graph comprises one or more epilogue functions defining a writing of output data of the operation.
Claims 8 and 9 recite further mental steps which can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper and thus, fail to make the claim any less abstract (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claims 10-12 recite further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed and thus, fail to add an inventive concept to the claims (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) and thus, are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Thus, Claims 8-12 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 7 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, Claims 7-12 are not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
<<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>>
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 13 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Claim 13 is directed to a machine-storage medium, which is an article of manufacture, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 13 recites the limitations:
(a) generating a first modular operation generator graph using the modular operation graph and one or more sets of kernels; and
(b) generating a second modular operation generator graph comprising one or more fused operations by performing one or more fusions of two or more operations of the modular operation generator graph.
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting, in the preamble:
(1) [a] machine-storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a machine, cause the machine to perform operations comprising.
Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) in the context of the claim encompasses a human observing a modular operation graph and one or more sets of kernels in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to generate a first modular operation generator graph. And the limitation (b) in the context of the claim encompasses a human observing operations of the first modular operation generator graph in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to generate a second modular operation generator graph. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element, in the preamble:
(1) [a] machine-storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a machine, cause the machine to perform operations comprising.
The additional element (1) is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The machine-storage medium and machine are used as a tool to perform the receiving and generating steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(2) receiving a multi-layered computational graph comprising a modular operation graph, the modular operation graph comprising a set of modular operations.
The additional element (2) is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and thus, is an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering, and, as such, the additional element does not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional element amounts to necessary data gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(3) generating an executable object using the second modular operation generator graph comprising the one or more fused operations.
The additional element (3) fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional element recites only the idea of generating an executable object without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the generating solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of generating an executable object with no restriction on how the generating is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the generating, and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional element, in the preamble:
(1) [a] machine-storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a machine, cause the machine to perform operations comprising.
The additional element (1) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(2) receiving a multi-layered computational graph comprising a modular operation graph, the modular operation graph comprising a set of modular operations.
The additional element (2) simply appends a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer function of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activities. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to receive a multi-layered computational graph. Therefore, the limitation remains an insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(3) generating an executable object using the second modular operation generator graph comprising the one or more fused operations.
The additional element (3) does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of generating an executable object with no restriction on how the generating is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the generating, and does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components, an insignificant extra-solution activity, and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 14-18 are dependent on Claim 13, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 13.
Claim 14 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein generating the second modular operation generator graph comprises:
(b) selecting kernels from a set of system kernels and a set of user supplied kernels using definitions of the set of modular operations of the modular operation graph.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 15 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein a kernel of a set of user supplied kernels is treated as a first class object during a compilation process.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 16 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein selecting the kernels further uses metadata of a set of user supplied kernels.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 17 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein an operation of the first modular operation generator graph comprises one or more prologue functions defining a loading of input data into the operation.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 18 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein an operation of the first modular operation generator graph comprises one or more epilogue functions defining a writing of output data of the operation.
Claims 14 and 16 recite further mental steps which can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper and thus, fail to make the claim any less abstract (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claims 15, 17, and 18 recite further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed and thus, fail to add an inventive concept to the claims (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) and thus, are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Thus, Claims 14-18 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 13 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, Claims 13-18 are not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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)(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, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 10,901,715 (hereinafter “Raiman”).
As per Claim 1, Raiman discloses:
A computer-implemented method (col. 1 lines 30-32, “Described herein is an exemplary […] method […] for lazy compilation and kernel fusion in dynamic computation graphs.”), comprising:
receiving a multi-layered computational graph comprising a modular operation graph, the modular operation graph comprising a set of modular operations (col. 3 line 67 to col. 4 lines 1-5, “The system 100 receives user code and generates an input graph based on evaluation and translation of the received user code (block 210). The user code is of the type used for computation graph processing and may be written in various programming languages (e.g., Python, C++, Ruby, JavaScript, etc.) [a set of modular operations] (emphasis added).”);
generating a first modular operation generator graph using the modular operation graph and one or more sets of kernels (col. 5 lines 1-6, “After the system 100 applies the optimization rules to the input graph, a final input graph will have been created. The system 100 derives a transformation graph by comparison of the structure of the original stored copy of the generated input graph to a structure of the final optimized version of the input graph (block 260) (emphasis added).” and lines 10-15, “The system 100 then performs a device-specific optimization process of the JIT blocks based on the target device (e.g., CPU, GPU, TPU, etc.) upon which the kernel will be performed (block 270) (emphasis added). In one embodiment, the JIT blocks include operations of the original input graph that the system 100 has combined together for GPU processing.” and lines 34 and 35, “Kernels are functions that are executed in parallel on a GPU (e.g., a C language written function or program).”);
generating a second modular operation generator graph comprising one or more fused operations by performing one or more fusions of two or more operations of the modular operation generator graph (col. 5 lines 46-52, “The system 100 then performs the optimized input graph code using optimized JIT blocks and the operations for the determined implementation block(s) (block 280). When a result is requested for an input graph, the system 100 performs the optimized version of the input graph. In some instances, the optimized input graph may not include any JIT blocks (emphasis added).”; col. 14 lines 49-56, “If the parent of a JIT-able expression is also JIT-able, the system 100 may opt to combine those two operations into a single computation unit through fusion to form a JIT block. The combined set of operations may now be acted upon and treated by the system 100 as a single operation. This process of connecting JIT-able expressions is repeated by the system 100 until identified JIT-able expressions are fused to their neighbors (emphasis added).” and lines 61-66, “[…] the system 100 may set a maximum number of operations that may be combined together to form a JIT block. The system 100 combines the JITable nodes of an input graph until reaching a predetermined number of operations to be included in the JIT block (emphasis added).”); and
generating an executable object using the second modular operation generator graph comprising the one or more fused operations (col. 5 lines 52 -671, “In this instance, the operations of the optimized input graph are performed by the system 100, and a result of the optimized input graph is provided to a calling system, process, program or other code. The system 100 performs the operations of the non-JIT blocks using the referenced libraries of the implementation block(s). In other instances, the optimized input graph may include JIT blocks. In this case, the system 100 will access and execute the stored fused JIT kernel associated with the JIT block of the optimized input graph. In one embodiment of the system 100, some of the non-JIT block operations are performed by a CPU and the fused JIT kernels are performed by a GPU. In other embodiments, the system 100 may generate code and compile kernels for hardware accelerated processors such as Tensor Processing Units, Cerebras, Graphcore device and memristors (emphasis added).”).
[1Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Raiman discloses executing the stored fused JIT kernel associated with the JIT block of the optimized input graph. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that an executable object is generated for the stored fused JIT kernel in order for it to be executed.]
Claim 7 is a machine claim corresponding to the computer-implemented method claim hereinabove (Claim 1). Therefore, Claim 7 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claim 13 is a machine-storage medium claim corresponding to the computer-implemented method claim hereinabove (Claim 1). Therefore, Claim 13 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raiman in view of US 2012/0101929 (hereinafter “Howard”).
[Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to a compilation system for compiling multi-layered graphs that improves the optimization and extensibility of computational graphs used in machine learning systems (Abstract). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Raiman is generally directed to lazy compilation and kernel fusion in dynamic computation graphs (Raiman, Abstract). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Howard is generally directed to a parallel processing development environment that provides an interface through which a developer may access the environment to create a parallel processing routine (Howard, Abstract). Thus, Raiman and Howard are both analogous art to the claimed invention (even if they address different problems or are not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).]
As per Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Raiman discloses “generating the second modular operation generator graph,” “a set of system kernels,” and “the modular operation graph,” but Raiman does not explicitly disclose:
wherein generating the second modular operation generator graph comprises:
selecting kernels from a set of system kernels and a set of user supplied kernels using definitions of the set of modular operations of the modular operation graph.
However, Howard discloses:
selecting kernels from […] a set of user supplied kernels using definitions of the set of modular operations […] (paragraph [0197], “[…] assignment occurs when the moderator selects a user name from list 4806 and then selects the kernel to be assigned to that user, whereupon the selected kernel name is displayed 4810 by the user's name. If a kernel 4802 is double clicked by a user, the selected kernel is displayed within a pop-up Kernel Trace window.”; paragraph [0199], “The moderator is able to assign output values to each kernel/algorithm they are tracing. This is accomplished by double right clicking (selects) on the required kernel or algorithm. The moderator selection of a kernel/algorithm causes the input/output selection popup menu to be displayed. After the ‘Input’ button is selected on the Input/Output selection popup menu then the file or variables selection popup menu is displayed. If the URL of the variable file is entered followed by the selection of the ‘Continue’ button then a file with the following format is used to define all input variables.”; paragraph [0203], “The selection of an ‘Output’ button within the ‘Input/Output’ popup menu will cause the ‘Output File or Variable’ popup menu to be displayed. The ‘Output’ files and variables are filled in a manner analogous to the ‘Input’ files or variables.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Raiman and Howard are both analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Howard into the teaching of Raiman to include “wherein generating the second modular operation generator graph comprises: selecting kernels from a set of system kernels and a set of user supplied kernels using definitions of the set of modular operations of the modular operation graph.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to allow a user (e.g., developer) to interact with a user interface within a client to trace execution of a submitted kernel interactively (Howard, paragraph [0185]).
As per Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 2 is incorporated; and Raiman does not explicitly disclose:
wherein selecting the kernels further uses metadata of a set of user supplied kernels.
However, Howard discloses:
wherein selecting the kernels further uses metadata of a set of user supplied kernels (paragraph [0197], “[…] assignment occurs when the moderator selects a user name from list 4806 and then selects the kernel to be assigned to that user, whereupon the selected kernel name is displayed 4810 by the user's name. If a kernel 4802 is double clicked by a user, the selected kernel is displayed within a pop-up Kernel Trace window.”; paragraph [0199], “The moderator is able to assign output values to each kernel/algorithm they are tracing. This is accomplished by double right clicking (selects) on the required kernel or algorithm. The moderator selection of a kernel/algorithm causes the input/output selection popup menu to be displayed. After the ‘Input’ button is selected on the Input/Output selection popup menu then the file or variables selection popup menu is displayed. If the URL of the variable file is entered followed by the selection of the ‘Continue’ button then a file with the following format is used to define all input variables.”; paragraph [0203], “The selection of an ‘Output’ button within the ‘Input/Output’ popup menu will cause the ‘Output File or Variable’ popup menu to be displayed. The ‘Output’ files and variables are filled in a manner analogous to the ‘Input’ files or variables.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Raiman and Howard are both analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Howard into the teaching of Raiman to include “wherein selecting the kernels further uses metadata of a set of user supplied kernels.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to allow a user (e.g., developer) to interact with a user interface within a client to trace execution of a submitted kernel interactively (Howard, paragraph [0185]).
Claims 8 and 9 are machine claims corresponding to the computer-implemented method claims hereinabove (Claims 2 and 3, respectively). Therefore, Claims 8 and 9 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 2 and 3, respectively.
Claims 14 and 16 are machine-storage medium claims corresponding to the computer-implemented method claims hereinabove (Claims 2 and 3, respectively). Therefore, Claims 14 and 16 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 2 and 3, respectively.
Claims 4, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raiman in view of US 2011/0035736 (hereinafter “Stefansson”).
[Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to a compilation system for compiling multi-layered graphs that improves the optimization and extensibility of computational graphs used in machine learning systems (Abstract). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Raiman is generally directed to lazy compilation and kernel fusion in dynamic computation graphs (Raiman, Abstract). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Stefansson is generally directed to transforming a GPU array construct into a form that is executable on a GPU (Stefansson, paragraph [0026]). Thus, Raiman and Stefansson are both analogous art to the claimed invention (even if they address different problems or are not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).]
As per Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Raiman does not explicitly disclose:
wherein a kernel of a set of user supplied kernels is treated as a first class object during a compilation process.
However, Stefansson discloses:
wherein a kernel of a set of user supplied kernels is treated as a first class object during a compilation process (paragraph [0116], “Advanced users may be comfortable constructing their own kernels (e.g., CUDA kernels created using the CUDA language), or may have existing kernels that they wish to execute on GPU 210. For example, as shown in FIG. 10, a user may provide a kernel 1020 (e.g., a kernel that the user wants to be executed by GPU 210) to compiler 1010. In one example, kernel 1020 may include a CUDA (or a ‘.cu’) file that contains various ‘_global_’ entry points (e.g., as a user would create if they were to invoke a kernel in a CUDA manner).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Raiman and Stefansson are both analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Stefansson into the teaching of Raiman to include “wherein a kernel of a set of user supplied kernels is treated as a first class object during a compilation process.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to allow existing kernels that a user wish to execute on a computer (Stefansson, paragraph [0116]).
Claim 10 is a machine claim corresponding to the computer-implemented method claim hereinabove (Claim 4). Therefore, Claim 10 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 4.
Claim 15 is a machine-storage medium claim corresponding to the computer-implemented method claim hereinabove (Claim 4). Therefore, Claim 15 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 4.
Claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raiman in view of US 2013/0254494 (hereinafter “Oxford”).
[Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to a compilation system for compiling multi-layered graphs that improves the optimization and extensibility of computational graphs used in machine learning systems (Abstract). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Raiman is generally directed to lazy compilation and kernel fusion in dynamic computation graphs (Raiman, Abstract). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Oxford is generally directed to securing data (including instructions) associated with processes of a computing system (Oxford, paragraph [0002]). Thus, Raiman and Oxford are both analogous art to the claimed invention (even if they address different problems or are not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).]
As per Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Raiman discloses “an operation of the first modular operation generator graph,” but Raiman does not explicitly disclose:
wherein an operation of the first modular operation generator graph comprises one or more prologue functions defining a loading of input data into the operation.
However, Oxford discloses:
[…] one or more prologue functions defining a loading of input data into the operation (paragraph [0138], “Thus, in one embodiment, in order to execute a secure work function on a CPU, then that secure work function should be preceded by a prologue and followed by an epilogue. In certain embodiments, the purpose of the prologue is at least threefold. First, the prologue should prepare the input arguments that are passed to the secure work function for use by the secure work function. […] A second function of the prologue may be to construct a compound key whose value is dependent on a number of data elements. […] A third function of the prologue could be to initiate a request that the CPU begin executing the secure work function in secure mode.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Raiman and Oxford are both analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Oxford into the teaching of Raiman to include “wherein an operation of the first modular operation generator graph comprises one or more prologue functions defining a loading of input data into the operation.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to prepare input arguments that are passed to a work function for use by the work function (Oxford, paragraph [0138]).
As per Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Raiman discloses “an operation of the first modular operation generator graph,” but Raiman does not explicitly disclose:
wherein an operation of the first modular operation generator graph comprises one or more epilogue functions defining a writing of output data of the operation.
However, Oxford discloses:
[…] one or more epilogue functions defining a writing of output data of the operation (paragraph [0138], “Thus, in one embodiment, in order to execute a secure work function on a CPU, then that secure work function should be preceded by a prologue and followed by an epilogue.”; paragraph [0139], “The purpose of the epilogue may be to ‘clean up’ after the execution of the secure work function is complete.”; paragraph [0140], “A second function of the epilogue may be to either programmatically or automatically invalidate those portions of a data cache that have been written to while the secure work function (e.g., by the secure work function) was executing.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Raiman and Oxford are both analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Oxford into the teaching of Raiman to include “wherein an operation of the first modular operation generator graph comprises one or more epilogue functions defining a writing of output data of the operation.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to “clean up” after the execution of a work function is complete (Oxford, paragraph [0139]).
Claims 11 and 12 are machine claims corresponding to the computer-implemented method claims hereinabove (Claims 5 and 6, respectively). Therefore, Claims 11 and 12 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 5 and 6, respectively.
Claims 17 and 18 are machine-storage medium claims corresponding to the computer-implemented method claims hereinabove (Claims 5 and 6, respectively). Therefore, Claims 17 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 5 and 6, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure. They are as follows:
US 2022/0179703 (hereinafter “Vincent”) discloses processing resources used to improve neural network computations.
US 2022/0197692 (hereinafter “Simpson”) discloses processor graph execution using interrupt conservation.
US 2022/0350683 (hereinafter “Surendran”) discloses combining operations into a software kernel.
US 2022/0414455 (hereinafter “Collins”) discloses combining operations into a software kernel.
US 2024/0220316 (hereinafter “Hsu”) discloses modeling and compiling tensor processing applications for a computing platform using multi-layer adaptive data flow graphs.
US 11,809,981 (hereinafter “Jain”) discloses performing hardware operator fusion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Qing Chen whose telephone number is 571-270-1071. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/ interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui, can be reached at 571-272-3708. 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 more 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.
/Qing Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191