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 § 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 18-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis
Claims 18-20 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 18-20 are directed towards an operation method performed by a memory device, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process) under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 18 recites an abstract idea as per MPEP § 2106.04(a), Abstract Ideas [R-07. 2022]:
“generating 0-th and first differential weights based on 0-th and first weights provided from an external device”
“generating, based on 0-th and first differentially scaled input elements respectively corresponding to products of the first input element with the 0-th and first differential weights, 0-th and first output elements respectively corresponding to the products of the first input element with the 0th and first weights, in response to the weight multiplication command.”
Generating the differential weights is simple arithmetic, and may be done in the human mind, and/or with the aid of pen and paper. Applicant’s figure 4 shows the generation of the differential weights, which is done by subtracting one number from another.
Generating the output elements as described is simple arithmetic, and may be done in the human mind, and/or with the aid of pen and paper. Applicant’s figure 4, par. 24, and par. 80 describe the arithmetic operations for generating these values.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea, as it is directed towards a mental process, as detailed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II.
.Step 2A Prong 2
The following claim limitations recite additional elements that amount to Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity under MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity [R-07.2022]:
“receiving a first input element from the external device” is a type of insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) in a generic computing environment, akin to activities like "gathering input data" in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., and is insufficient to transform the abstract idea into a practical application.
“receiving a weight multiplication command for the 0-th and first weights and the first input element from the external device” is a type of insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) in a generic computing environment, akin to activities like "gathering input data" in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., and is insufficient to transform the abstract idea into a practical application.
“outputting the 0-th and first output elements to the external device” is a type of insignificant extra-solution activity in a generic computing environment, involving routine output of information, similar to "presenting offers to potential customers" as deemed insignificant in OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com.
The claim recited generic computing elements in the form of “a memory device.”
Accordingly, the claims do not include any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These constitute insignificant extra-solution activity as defined in MPEP § 2106.05(g) and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
With respect to storing input elements provided form the external device, receiving inputs and a weight multiplication command, and outputting output elements described above as insignificant extra-solution activities, these limitations are well-understood, routine or conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) – storing and retrieving information in memory). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The dependent claims 19-20 depend from independent claim 18, and are directed to the same abstract idea(s) of their parent claim. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims describe generating values using mathematics, that are part of the abstract idea. None of the dependent claims include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to independent claim 1, the closest prior art, CN 110209375, teaches “a memory device comprising: a format conversion circuit configured to generate a plurality of weights based on a plurality of weights provided from an external device; a memory cell array configured to store a first input element provided from the external device and to store the plurality of differential weights generated by the format conversion circuit,” in the abstract. Additionally, Jeon et al., US PGPub 2025/0139193, teaches “a quantization circuit configured to generate a plurality of scale coefficients based on quantizing the plurality of differential weights,” in par. 84, with the exception that Jeon uses pure weights and not differential weights, and therefore the combination of CN 110209375 with Jeon, along with the rest of the cited prior art fails to teach “a quantization circuit configured to (i) obtain the plurality of differential weights and (ii) generate a plurality of scale coefficients based on quantizing the plurality of differential weights into a form of a power of 2; and an input element scaling circuit configured to (i) obtain the first input element and the plurality of scale coefficients, (ii) determine, based on the plurality of scale coefficients and the first input element, a plurality of output elements corresponding to products of the first input element, and (iii) output the plurality of output elements to the external device.”
Similarly, with respect to independent claim 9, since CN 110209375 and Jeon fail to teach the particular combination of scale coefficients based on differential weights, the cited prior art fails to teach “a quantization circuit configured to (i) obtain the plurality of differential weights and (ii) generate 0-th to n-th scale coefficients based on quantizing 0-th to n-th differential weights of the plurality of differential weights in a power of 2 (wherein n is an integer greater than or equal to 1); and an input element scaling circuit configured to (i) determine 0-th to n-th output elements based on the 0-th to n-th scale coefficients and an input element and (ii) output the 0-th to n-th output elements to the external device, wherein the input element scaling circuit comprises, a power scaling circuit configured to generate 0-th to n-th differentially scaled input elements by scaling the input element based on the 0-th to n-th scale coefficients, and an accumulation circuit configured to sequentially generate the 0-th to n-th output elements by sequentially accumulating the 0-th to n-th differentially scaled input elements.”
Claims 2-8 depend from claim 1, and claims 10-17 depend from claim 9, and are allowable by virtue of their dependence from the allowed base claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While the claim amendments overcome the rejection of independent claims 1-17 under 35 USC 101, the rejection of claims 18-20 is maintained, as it was not similarly amended.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN DARE whose telephone number is (571)272-4069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Hosain Alam can be reached at 571-272-3978. 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.
/RYAN DARE/Examiner, Art Unit 2132
/HOSAIN T ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2132
Prosecution Insights