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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending. On 8/5/26, the examiner contacted, the attorney’s agent, Tina Choi who elected group 1, claims 1-9, and 14-20. Claims 10-13 are withdrawn this action is a non-final office action. Thus claims 1-9, 14-20 are pending and rejected. This action is a non-final office action.
Election/Restriction
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group 1-9, 14-20, claim(s) are, classified in G11C29/1201 drawn to a data preconditioning using neural using network.
Group 10-13, claim(s) are classified in G11C11/54, drawn to training a neural network preconditioning circuit.
Inventions I and II are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination II has separate utility such as training a neural network. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Here the examiner would otherwise have to prosecute two inventions and conduct different searches.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Tina Choi on 8/5/26 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of 1, claims 1-9 and 14-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 10-13 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 5-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: the language “cause an amplitude the data write signal to be adjusted” appears to be a typo, This should be “cause the amplitude of the data write signal to be adjusted” similar to claims 17,18. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7,9, 14-18,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
US Patent Publication 20170092263 to Horesh in view of Us Patent Publication to
20220057962 to Li
As per claim 1,
Horesh discloses;
wherein a neural network of the preconditioning circuit is configured to precondition the write data
signal based on a characteristic of a write data path that includes a propagation path of the write
data from the data terminal through to storage at a memory cell to provide
signal; Horesh(preconditioning for memory, 0035 for neural networks 0046, the output can be stored… )
and a memory array configured to store the write data at the memory cell based on the modified
write data signal. Horesh (0114)
Li(0058Write operations)
Here in regards to the modified write data, Li teaches what Horesh does not disclose;
a modified write data (fig. 3 302-3 compressing the data size)
It would therefore have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the neural networks and write data of Horesh with the modification or compression of data of Li for the motivation of “how to optimize… limited hardware resources (0004-0005)
Claim 14 is similar to claim 1
As per claim 2 Horesh discloses; The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the neural network is configured to modify the write data signal based on one or more coefficient values selected based on the characteristic of
the write data path.
Horesh (0095-6 values)
Claim 15 is similar to claim 2.
As per claim 3 Horesh discloses; The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the one or more coefficient values are determined
during training of the neural network by writing test write data to the memory array.
Horesh(0101, testing was done to explore improvements)
Claim 16 is similar to claim 3.
As per claim 4 Horesh discloses;
The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the neural network includes multiplication and
accumulation units configured to combine the write data signal and the one or more coefficient
values. Horesh(0095)
As per claim 5, Horesh discloses preconditioning data storage, However Li teaches;
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the neural network is configured to cause an
Amplitude of the write data signal to be adjusted to provide the modified write data signal.
(0057) The motivation for the combination would be similar to that provided for claim 1.
As per claim 6, Horesh does not explicitly disclose what Li teaches; The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the neural network is configured to cause an
amplitude the write data signal to be increased to provide the modified write data signal.
Li(0060-62) The motivation for combination would be similar to that provided in claim 1.
Claim 17 is similar to claim 6.
As per claim 7, Horesh does not explicitly disclose what Li teaches; The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the neural network is configured to cause an
amplitude the write data signal be decreased to provide the modified write data signal.
Li(0060-62, compression of the data write)
The motivation for combination would be similar to that provided in claim 1.
Claim 18 is similar to claim 7
As per claim 9 Horesh discloses; The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the characteristic of the write data path includes
process variation of circuit components of the memory array.
H(0008, here applicant specification does not describe process variation, it is merely is noted in 0045 of the PG pub. Thus the weight given to the limitation is similar to the support)
Claim 20 is similar to claim 9.
Claim(s) 8, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
US Patent Publication 20170092263 to Horesh in view of Us Patent Publication to
20220057962 to Li in view of US Patent Publication 20190050159 to Jung
As per claim 9 Horesh and LI do not explicitly disclose what Jung teaches; The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the characteristic of the write data path includes
a capacitance.
(Jung 0031, hardware having capacitors, it is noted that applicant specification does not support much more than capacitance literally)
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the capacitor of Jung with the memory of Horesh and Li for the motivation of performing training operations on memory. (0002)
Claim 19 is similar to claim 8
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Verification and Testing Considerations of an In-Memory AI Chip, IEEE 2020
Verification and Testing Considerations of an In-Memory AI Chip, IEEE 2020
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE I EBERSMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3442. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday-Friday.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights