DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are considered in this Office 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/31/2024 has been acknowledged.
The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. The initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 is attached to the instant Office action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “unit” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “configured to” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “configured to” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitation(s) are in Claims 12 and 13 and consist of the limitations of a “a pseudo random generator coupled to the data tensor and configured to…”, “a kernel buffer configured to…”, “a multiplier… configured to…”, “an adder… configured to…”, and “an accumulator… configure to…”.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 20 is directed at use of four instances of “a pseudo random generator coupled to the data tensor and configured to…”, “a kernel buffer configured to…”, “a multiplier… configured to…”, “an adder… configured to…”, and “an accumulator… configure to…”. These elements which are configured are not defined in the specification as to what these configurations would be, other than what functions they perform. For instance, the Specification states:
“[0053]The accumulator 512 functions as a storage unit, continuously accumulating the weighted sums from the adder 510. The accumulator 512 can maintain a dynamic connection with the adder 510, receiving weighted sums in each cycle and updating the cumulative sum over successive iterations. This iterative process forms the backbone of the multiply-accumulate operation for training machine learning models.”
Which is exemplary of an element configured to perform a limitation as in the Specification, and the Specification generally states what these elements are capable of doing, but does not define what these elements are or how these configurations perform the limitations of the claims. There are no details nor a description of the means to perform these processes/limitations. To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that a patent must describe the technology; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee was in possession of the invention that is claimed." Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The dependent Claims inherit the deficiencies of the independent claims and thus are similarly rejected.
Therefore, the claims and their dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), written description, as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 12 and 13 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.
Claim 12 recites use of “a pseudo random generator coupled to the data tensor and configured to…”, “a kernel buffer configured to…”, “a multiplier… configured to…”, “an adder… configured to…”, and “an accumulator… configure to…”. Applicant’s specification is silent as to what these elements/configurations may be for these as per the specification excerpt above, and as best taken from above, this is hardware which is in communication with the device. For Examination purposes this will be taken as any hardware which can perform the limitations of the claims. The dependent Claim inherits the deficiencies of the independent claims and thus are similarly rejected.
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.
Alice – Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 recite the limitations for pseudo random values and a second data structure comprising one or more learned values based on a target compression ratio of a first dimension associated with a first weight matrix to a second dimension (Collecting and Analyzing Information, an Observation and Evaluation) generating a second weight matrix comprising the second dimension with the second data structure and a seed value associated with the first data structure, the second weight matrix being generated based at least in part on the pseudo random values and the one or more learned values, and the second weight matrix being a compressed version of the first weight matrix based on the target compression ratio (Analyzing Information, an Evaluation) ,and training a neural network with the second weight matrix to produce a trained machine learning model (Analyzing and Transmitting Information, a Judgment; using a Machine learning model, a Mathematical Concept/Relationship), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of analyzing results and transmitting information, which is a Fundamental Economic Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting use of a neural network, a device, memory, processors, and medium, nothing in the claim elements preclude the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of a Analyzing Information using Mathematical Concepts/Relationships. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for use of matrices, a Mathematical Concept/Relationship. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The processor, device, neural network, medium, and memory, are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the receiving and transmitting steps above are at best insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these 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.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification states:
“[0025]The electronic device 110 may be, for example, a desktop computer, a portable computing device such as a laptop computer, a smartphone, a peripheral device (e.g., a digital camera, headphones), a tablet device, a wearable device such as a watch, a band, and the like. In FIG. 1, by way of example, the electronic device 110 is depicted as a mobile electronic device (e.g., smartphone). ”
Which shows that these steps can be performed on any generic computing device with a processor and memory, which can be used to perform the abstract limitations, such as a laptop, phone, desktop, etc., and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies. For the receiving and transmitting steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the device, medium, processors, etc., nor the receiving and transmitting steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-10 and 12-19 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with the additional elements of a data tensor, a pseudo random generator coupled to the data tensor, a kernel buffer configured to store, a multiplier, an adder, and an accumulator which are highly generalized when considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice analysis of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Baalen (U.S. Publication No. 2025/024,5494) in view of Courville (U.S. Publication No. 2022/003,6189).
Regarding Claims 1, 11, and 20, Van Baalen, a system and method for codebook compression for vector quantized neural networks, teaches a method, comprising: determining a first data structure ([0057] a data structure) comprising
pseudo random values and a second data structure comprising one or more learned values based on a target compression ratio of a first dimension ([0101] compression ratio of the first dimension) associated with a first weight matrix to a second dimension ([0098] second dimension which is learned using weighted matrices in order to sort, which uses a [0101] compression ratio and [0116] random values);
generating a second weight matrix comprising the second dimension with the second data structure associated with the first data structure, the second weight matrix being generated based at least in part on the pseudo random values and the one or more learned values, and the second weight matrix being a compressed version of the first weight matrix based on the target compression ratio ([0110-115] multiple dimension are used with the learned values and the [0116] random values for sorting in order to train [0046] neural networks) ; and
training a neural network with the second weight matrix to produce a trained machine learning model ([0046] pre-training and post-training per the prescribed process above such as from [0110-116])
Van Baalen does not explicitly state a seed value in use.
Courville, a system and method for random semi-structured row-wise pruning in neural networks, teaches a seed value being used and reused along with a compression ratio for training of a neural network as in [0138].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the matrices and random values for training of a neural network of Van Baalen with the compression ratios and seed values for neural networks of Courville as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to training of neural networks and the combination would lead to an improved system which would decrease memory use and inference time without a loss of accuracy as taught in [0043] of Courville.
Examiner notes Van Baalen teaches a system/device, memories, processors, tenor, and medium as in [0141-142].
Regarding Claim 2, Van Baalen teaches wherein the first dimension comprises at least a portion of a column in the first weight matrix and the second dimension comprises at least a portion of a column in the second weight matrix ([0065-66] columns and portions of columns used in conjunction with the weighted matrices)
Regarding Claim 3, Van Baalen teaches the second data structure being stored in memory as in [0141-142] in Claim 1 above.
Van Baalen does not explicitly state a seed value in use.
Courville, a system and method for random semi-structured row-wise pruning in neural networks, teaches a seed value being used and reused along with a compression ratio for training of a neural network as in [0138].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the matrices and random values for training of a neural network of Van Baalen with the compression ratios and seed values for neural networks of Courville as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to training of neural networks and the combination would lead to an improved system which would decrease memory use and inference time without a loss of accuracy as taught in [0043] of Courville.
Regarding Claim 4, Van Baalen teaches wherein the determining the second data structure comprises determining the one or more learned values of the second data structure based on different instances of the first data structure ([0117] learned values are sorted which are learned from the structures and codebook as in Claim 1 above)
Van Baalen does not explicitly state a seed value in use.
Courville, a system and method for random semi-structured row-wise pruning in neural networks, teaches a seed value being used and reused along with a compression ratio for training of a neural network as in [0138].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the matrices and random values for training of a neural network of Van Baalen with the compression ratios and seed values for neural networks of Courville as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to training of neural networks and the combination would lead to an improved system which would decrease memory use and inference time without a loss of accuracy as taught in [0043] of Courville.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10 and 12-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the independent claim was amended in such a way as to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20250245494 A1
VAN BAALEN; Marinus Willem et al.
CODEBOOK COMPRESSION FOR VECTOR QUANTIZED NEURAL NETWORKS
US 20220036189 A1
COURVILLE; Vanessa et al.
METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND MEDIA FOR RANDOM SEMI-STRUCTURED ROW-WISE PRUNING IN NEURAL NETWORKS
US 20250038765 A1
Galvin; Brian
DEEP LEARNING ARCHITECTURE FOR OPERATING ON HOMOMORPHICALLY COMPRESSED AND ENCRYPTED DATA
US 20230062540 A1
SURTI; Prasoonkumar et al.
MEMORY ALLOCATION TECHNOLOGIES FOR DATA COMPRESSION AND DE-COMPRESSION
US 20200234469 A1
JEON; Sunyoung et al.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ENCODING AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DECODING METHODS AND APPARATUSES USING DEEP NEURAL NETWORK
US 20200193647 A1
JEON; Sunyoung et al.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ENCODING AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DECODING METHODS AND APPARATUSES USING DEEP NEURAL NETWORK
US 20190318533 A1
Gruen; Holger Heinrich
REALISM OF SCENES INVOLVING WATER SURFACES DURING RENDERING
US 20260221223 A1
Bachman; John Ata et al.
PLATFORMS, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS FOR USING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FOR CELL OPTIMIZATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM M-F.
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, BETH BOSWELL can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625B 9/17/2026
Prosecution Insights