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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The full breadth of “allocating computation tasks of p subgraphs of the second computation graph to the m processors for execution, wherein the p subgraphs comprise the n subgraphs, computation tasks of the n subgraphs are respectively allocated to the n processors for execution, and each of the n processors executes one of the computation tasks of the n subgraphs, wherein p is an integer greater than or equal to n” is not disclosed.
Broadly speaking, the invention splits the shape of a dimension of input data to a neural network in two such that the ratio of the sizes of first split input data and second split input data corresponds to the ratio of the computation capabilities of a first computation device that will process the first split data and a second computation device that will process the second split data. Specification ¶¶ [00277]-[00288], [00349]. The claims recite a generic relationship between particular subgraphs of the n parallel subgraphs and particular processors of the n processors such that a specific one-to-one relationship between particular subgraphs of the n parallel subgraphs and particular computation capabilities of the n processors in the claim is not in the claims for “respectively” to do what Applicant is intending it to do. That is, the claims cover an embodiment wherein the first split input data is allocated to the second computation device and the second split input data is allocated to the first computation device.
If, for example, a GPU is twice as fast as a CPU in performing the neural network workload being split, and the purpose of the invention, as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand it, is to therefore split the workload in three parts and distribute two parts to the GPU and one part to the CPU in order to efficiently use all available processing power as efficiently as possible, the claims cover an embodiment where two parts are given to the CPU, resulting in performance ~16% worse than simply running the entire workload on the GPU, negating the entire purpose of the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood this to be in Applicant’s possession.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The full breadth of “performing operator splitting on a first subgraph in a first computation graph corresponding to a neural network model, to obtain a second computation graph, wherein the second computation graph comprises n parallel subgraphs corresponding to the first subgraph, and overheads of the n subgraphs and computation capabilities of n of the m processors meet a first matching relationship, wherein 1<n≤m, and n is an integer” is not disclosed.
That is, the invention claims performing operator splitting on a generic first subgraph. The claims cover an embodiment where “[t]he first computation graph includes three continuous convolution operators, a maximum pooling (MaxPoolFusion) operator, a reshape (Reshape) operator, two continuous full connection (FullConnection) operators, and a classification (Softmax) operator.” Specification ¶ [00277]. However, the disclosure only discusses performing operator splitting on a subgraph consisting of continuous convolution operators. Specification ¶¶ [00279]-[00288]. There is no discussion of performing operator splitting on a maximum pooling operator, a reshape operator, full connection operators, or classification operators. There is no indication that the disclosed technique applied to convolution operators would be possible to apply to the other disclosed species of operators. Therefore, Applicant has not disclosed a sufficient number of species of subgraphs to support the claim to performing operator splitting on a generic first subgraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claims 1, 8, and 15:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “obtaining computation capabilities of m processors, wherein m is an integer greater than 1,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “obtaining” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, as to the computation capabilities of the processors. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “overheads of the n subgraphs and computation capabilities of n of the m processors meet a first matching relationship, wherein 1<n≤m, and n is an integer,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “meeting” encompasses forming a judgment how to apply operator splitting in order to achieve a desired outcome of optimizing a mathematical relationship (the claimed first matching relationship) between overheads of the n subgraphs and computation capabilities of n of the m processors. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
For the purposes of evaluating whether the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea or is significantly more than an abstract idea, these recited abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely optimizing splitting a workload of a neural network model based on the overhead of splitting and the computation capabilities of the devices over which the workload will be split. See Constellation Designs v. LG Elecs. Inc., No 2024-1822, slip op. at 19 (Fed. Cir. April 28, 2026) (“This broad claim language covers all manners and ways of optimizing a constellation based on one of a limited number of known characteristics of constellations—capacity—and one of a limited number of known capacity measures—PD capacity.”). MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B).
The abstract idea of optimizing splitting a workload of a neural network model based on the overhead of splitting and the computation capabilities of the devices over which the workload will be split is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “performing operator splitting on a first subgraph in a first computation graph corresponding to a neural network model, to obtain a second computation graph, wherein the second computation graph comprises n parallel subgraphs corresponding to the first subgraph,” is mere instruction to apply the abstract idea of optimizing splitting a workload of a neural network model based on the overhead of splitting and the computation capabilities of the devices over which the workload will be split because the outcome of performing operator splitting on the first subgraph to obtain n parallel subgraphs corresponding to the first subgraph without reciting details of how the n parallel subgraphs are obtained, and is insignificant extra-solution activity as insignificant computer implementation. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “allocating computation tasks of p subgraphs of the second computation graph to the m processors for execution, wherein the p subgraphs comprise the n subgraphs, computation tasks of the n subgraphs are respectively allocated to the n processors for execution, and each of the n processors executes one of the computation tasks of the n subgraphs, wherein p is an integer greater than or equal to n,” is mere instruction to apply the abstract idea of optimizing splitting a workload of a neural network model based on the overhead of splitting and the computation capabilities of the devices over which the workload will be split because the outcome of allocating the subgraphs to the processors is recited without detail of how the subgraphs are allocated, and as such is insignificant extra-solution activity as insignificant computer implementation. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere instruction to apply the apply the abstract idea of optimizing splitting a workload of a neural network model based on the overhead of splitting and the computation capabilities of the devices over which the workload will be split because the outcomes of splitting a subgraph into subgraphs and allocating tasks of the split subgraphs to respective processors such that overheads of the split subgraphs and computation capabilities of the respective processors meet a matching relationship is recited without details of how the matching relationship is met, and merely links the abstract idea of optimizing the distribution a workload to the technological field of neural networks. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to the recited abstract idea of optimizing splitting a workload of a neural network model based on the overhead of splitting and the computation capabilities of the devices over which the workload will be split. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “performing operator splitting on a first subgraph in a first computation graph corresponding to a neural network model, to obtain a second computation graph, wherein the second computation graph comprises n parallel subgraphs corresponding to the first subgraph,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because operator splitting is described, Specification ¶ [00284] (“conventional splitting manner”), as conventional. MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
The additional element, “allocating computation tasks of p subgraphs of the second computation graph to the m processors for execution, wherein the p subgraphs comprise the n subgraphs, computation tasks of the n subgraphs are respectively allocated to the n processors for execution, and each of the n processors executes one of the computation tasks of the n subgraphs, wherein p is an integer greater than or equal to n,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because allocating tasks to processors is described, Specification ¶¶ [00108]-[00112], in functional language specifying a desired result without detail of specific steps or procedures taken to perform the function, and therefore in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A); see MPEP § 2161.01.
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 2, 9, and 16:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein overhead of the first subgraph is greater than overhead of at least half of subgraphs of the first computation graph,” recites a mathematical relationship between overhead of the first subgraph and overhead of at least half of subgraphs of the first computation graph. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 3, 10, and 17:
The abstract idea of optimizing splitting a workload of a neural network model based on the overhead of splitting and the computation capabilities of the devices over which the workload will be split is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein, when the first subgraph comprises a plurality of operators, all operators in the first subgraph execute sequentially,” is mere instruction to apply the abstract idea of abstract idea of optimizing splitting a workload of a neural network model based on the overhead of splitting and the computation capabilities of the devices over which the workload will be split because the outcome of executing the operators serially is recited without details of how the operators are executed, and as such is insignificant extra-solution activity as insignificant computer implementation. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the abstract idea of optimizing splitting a workload to the technological environment of workloads described as a subgraph comprising a plurality of operations having a serial execution sequence. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to the recited abstract idea of optimizing splitting a workload of a neural network model based on the overhead of splitting and the computation capabilities of the devices over which the workload will be split. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “wherein, when the first subgraph comprises a plurality of operators, all operators in the first subgraph execute sequentially,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because such a computation graph is described, Specification ¶¶ [00102]-[00107], in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A); see MPEP § 2161.01.
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 4, 11, and 18:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein input data of the n subgraphs is obtained by performing data splitting on input data of the first subgraph; and when the operator in the first subgraph is a convolution operator, and a slide stride of the convolution operator is less than a height of a convolution kernel, at least two of the n subgraphs share a portion of their input data,” recites a mathematical relationship among the input data defined by the convolution operator. That is, splitting the application of a convolution operator across input data requires, in a mathematical sense, the inclusion of shared data between the split input, as the convolution operator, as a sliding window, inherently requires input data past the end of what would otherwise be the split point of the split of the input data, Specification ¶ [00287], such that this recites the mathematical idea of splitting a convolution operator. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 5, 12, and 19:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the first matching relationship comprises a difference between a ratio of the overheads of the n subgraphs and a ratio of the computation capabilities of the n processors is less than or equal to a first threshold,” as drafted, recites a mathematical relationship between a ratio of the overheads of the n subgraphs and a ratio of the computation capabilities of the n processors. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 6, 13, and 20:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the p subgraphs comprise q parallel subgraphs in the first computation graph,” “overheads of the q subgraphs and computation capabilities of the q processors meet a second matching relationship, wherein q is an integer greater than 1,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “meeting” encompasses forming a judgment how to apply operator splitting in order to achieve a desired outcome of optimizing a mathematical relationship (the claimed second matching relationship) between overheads of the q subgraphs and computation capabilities of q of the m processors. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The abstract idea of optimizing splitting a workload of a neural network model based on the overhead of splitting and the computation capabilities of the devices over which the workload will be split is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “computation tasks of the q subgraphs are allocated to q of the m processors for execution, each of the q processors executes one of the computation tasks of the q subgraphs,” is mere instruction to apply the abstract idea of optimizing splitting a workload of a neural network model based on the overhead of splitting and the computation capabilities of the devices over which the workload will be split because the outcome of allocating the subgraphs to the processors and executing them is recited without detail of how the subgraphs are allocated and executed, and as such is insignificant extra-solution activity as insignificant computer implementation. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere instruction to apply the apply the abstract idea of optimizing splitting a workload of a neural network model based on the overhead of splitting and the computation capabilities of the devices over which the workload will be split because the outcomes of splitting a subgraph into subgraphs and allocating tasks of the split subgraphs to respective processors such that overheads of the split subgraphs and computation capabilities of the respective processors meet a matching relationship is recited without details of how the matching relationship is met, and merely links the abstract idea of optimizing the distribution a workload to the technological field of neural networks. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to the recited abstract idea of optimizing splitting a workload of a neural network model based on the overhead of splitting and the computation capabilities of the devices over which the workload will be split. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “computation tasks of the q subgraphs are allocated to q of the m processors for execution, each of the q processors executes one of the computation tasks of the q subgraphs,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because allocating tasks to processors is described, Specification ¶¶ [00108]-[00112], in functional language specifying a desired result without detail of specific steps or procedures taken to perform the function, and therefore in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A); see MPEP § 2161.01.
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 7 and 14:
The abstract idea of optimizing splitting a workload of a neural network model based on the overhead of splitting and the computation capabilities of the devices over which the workload will be split is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “converting the p subgraphs into p actors respectively,” is mere instruction to apply the abstract idea of optimizing splitting a workload of a neural network model based on the overhead of splitting and the computation capabilities of the devices over which the workload will be split because the outcome of converting the subgraphs into actors is recited without detail of how the conversion is accomplished, and as such is insignificant computer implementation. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “scheduling, in an execution process of the p actors, the m processors to execute the computation tasks of the p subgraphs,” is mere instruction to apply the abstract idea of optimizing splitting a workload of a neural network model based on the overhead of splitting and the computation capabilities of the devices over which the workload will be split because the outcome of scheduling processors to execute computation tasks is recited without detail of how the tasks are scheduled, and as such is insignificant computer implementation. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere instruction to apply the apply the abstract idea of optimizing splitting a workload of a neural network model based on the overhead of splitting and the computation capabilities of the devices over which the workload will be split because the outcomes of splitting a subgraph into subgraphs and allocating tasks of the split subgraphs to respective processors such that overheads of the split subgraphs and computation capabilities of the respective processors meet a matching relationship is recited without details of how the matching relationship is met, and merely links the abstract idea of optimizing the distribution a workload to the technological field of neural networks. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to the recited abstract idea of optimizing splitting a workload of a neural network model based on the overhead of splitting and the computation capabilities of the devices over which the workload will be split. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “converting the p subgraphs into p actors respectively,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because allocating tasks to processors is described, Specification ¶¶ [00108]-[00112], in functional language specifying a desired result without detail of specific steps or procedures taken to perform the function, and therefore in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A); see MPEP § 2161.01.
The additional element, “scheduling, in an execution process of the p actors, the m processors to execute the computation tasks of the p subgraphs,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because allocating tasks to processors is described, Specification ¶¶ [00108]-[00112], [00318], in functional language specifying a desired result without detail of specific steps or procedures taken to perform the function, and therefore in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A); see MPEP § 2161.01.
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
Prior Art and Allowable Subject Matter
“[P]erforming operator splitting on a first subgraph in a first computation graph corresponding to a neural network model, to obtain a second computation graph, wherein the second computation graph comprises n parallel subgraphs corresponding to the first subgraph, and overheads of the n subgraphs and computation capabilities of n of the m processors meet a first matching relationship, wherein 1<n≤m, and n is an integer” is novel and non-obvious. Wang et al., CN 112598112 A, does not teach performing operating splitting on a first subgraph in a first computation graph corresponding to a neural network model to obtain a second computation graph. Wang is silent as to subgraphs and operator splitting. The term “子任务” of Wang, translated as “subtask,” is more analogous to the operators. These subtasks are not themselves split.
When the purported improvement to technology comes from performing operator splitting, performing operator splitting must be recited in terms of how it splits operators to achieve the desired outcome of having overheads of the subgraphs and computation capabilities of processors for which the operator is being split meet a matching relationship, not by merely claiming the desired outcome. MPEP § 2106.05(a) (“An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.”).
Applicant is invited to discuss features of the disclosed manner of splitting the workload of a convolutional layer of a convolutional neural network by splitting a subgraph of convolutional operators using a) an overlap in input data determined by the size of a window of the convolutional operator and b) modifying the split subgraph to shrink the shape of the data produced by the convolutional operators in the split subgraphs to reshape the data back down to eliminate the overlap such that the data produced by the respective split subgraphs can be simply concatenated to replicate the data that would be produced without the split, and whether they are significant or preemptive such that they amount to mere instruction to apply the idea of optimizing splitting a workload of a neural network model based on the overhead of splitting and the computation capabilities of the devices over which the workload will be split as applied to the technological environment of convolutional operators. See McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The specific structure of the claimed rules would prevent broad preemption of all rules-based means of automating lip synchronization, unless the limits of the rules themselves are broad enough to cover all possible approaches.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM SPIELER whose telephone number is (571)270-3883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11-3.
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, Ann Lo can be reached at 571-272-9767. 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.
WILLIAM SPIELER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2159
/WILLIAM SPIELER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights