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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are currently pending. Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are allowed. Claims 5 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on June 21, 2024, and September 9, 2026, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites, in pertinent part:
“based on an execution order of a step in which a first tensor from among the plurality of tensors is last used being equal to or faster than an execution order in which a second tensor of a layer adjacent to a layer of the first tensor is first to first used, integrate at least a portion of the determined execution order so that the first tensor and the second tensor are shared.”
The phrase “is first to first used” renders the claim indefinite because the phrase does not have a reasonably ascertainable meaning in the context of the claimed comparison between the execution order in which the first tensor is last used and the execution order associated with use of the second tensor. It is unclear, for example, whether the claim intends to require that the second tensor “is first used”, “is first to be used”, or some other temporal relationship. These interpretations affect the condition under which the execution order is integrated so that the first and second tensors are shared. Although the remainder of the disclose may provide context from which intended wording might be inferred, the examiner cannot rewrite the claim or select among possible meanings where the claim itself does not clearly establish the claimed temporal relationship. Accordingly, one or ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of claim 5. See MPEP § 2173.02.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the memory" in “allocating the data to the plurality of tensors by reducing and/or minimizing a region of the memory for allocating data corresponding to the plurality of tensors, based on the integrated execution order There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 does not previously introduce or otherwise positively recite a memory to which the definite article “the” can refer. The lack of antecedent basis makes the scope of the claim indeterminate because it is unclear what memory is being referenced and, consequently, what memory region is required to be reduced and/or minimized. In particular, claim 8 recites a controlling method of an electronic apparatus, some other memory used during neural-network training, or another memory resource. Because the identity of the claimed memory affects the scope of the recited allocating step, the ambiguity is substantive rather than merely formal.
Claims 9-14 depend from claim 8 and do not cure the ambiguity concerning “the memory”. Accordingly, claims 9-14 are indefinite for the same reason as claim 8.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the memory" in "”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15 previously recites a “non-transitory computer readable recording medium” and a controlling method of an electronic apparatus, but does not introduce a “memory” before subsequently referring to “the memory”. The lack of antecedent basis makes the scope of claim 15 indeterminate because it is unclear whether “the memory” refers to the claimed computer-readable recording medium, a memory of the electronic apparatus on which the controlling method is executed, another memory used to allocate tensor data, or some other memory resource. These alternatives do not necessarily define the same claimed subject matter, and the identity of the memory determines the scope of the limitation requiring reduction and/or minimization of a region thereof.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are allowed. Claims 5, 8, and 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) set forth in this Office action. Claims 9-14 would be allowable upon amendment of claim 8 to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
The prior art located during the search generally discloses neural-network execution ordering, tensor or variable lifetime analysis, memory reuse, and neural-network training operations. However, the prior art located does not teach or suggest integrating a determined execution order based on both (i) information regarding where tensors are used according to the determined execution order and (ii) information regarding whether tensors used in neighboring layers are able to be shared, as recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul Coleman whose telephone number is (571)272-4687. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, David Yi can be reached at (571) 270-7519. 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.
/PAUL COLEMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2126
/DAVID YI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2126
Prosecution Insights