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 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 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1-20, each independent claim recites a “polar encoder” to “perform polar encoding with respect to the first data provided from the memory and output a result of the polar encoding as second data, the second data being decompressed data”. This language is not clear. It is not clear how the “polar encoder” outputs “decompressed weight data” from “compressed weight data”. At least as claimed, there doesn’t appear to be any polar encoding (or polar decoding) being performed as known in the art for error correction purposes, but rather just for decompressing compressed weight data? Hence, it’s not clear how to interpret “polar encoder” and “polar encoding” since error correction does not appear to be present as known and understood in the art. In addition, the language, “polar encoding with respect to the first data…” is not clear. Per Merriam-Webster, “with respect to” means “with reference to : in relation to” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/with%20respect%20to ). It’s unclear if the language is intended to mean that polar encoding is performed directly on the first data or polar encoding on something else “in relation to” the first data.
Regarding claims 1-20, the term “weight data” is unclear where there is an uncertainty how to fully understand the metes and bounds of the term? It is not clear or defined in the claims as to what is “weighted”. Are the “weight data” weights of the define machine learning model? Are the “weight data” input features to the defined machine learning inference model? Are the “weight data” related to the polar encoding algorithm used?
Referring claims 14-20, claim 14 recites “performing polar decoding with respect to source weight data..” The same lack of clarity with regard to the interpretation of “with respect to” is present as explained previously.
Referring claims 14-20, claim 14 recites, “performing the polar encoding with respect to the third data. The “with respect to” issue is present and “the polar encoding” does not seem to be referring back the “polar encoding” as claimed in claim 13 presenting further confusion. This “polar encoding” is claimed in the “generating the first data” steps which must occur before the “first data” can be input to the polar encoder as claimed in claim 13. So the first data is polar encoded, then the polar encoder performs the polar encoding again? Or different type of polar encoding?
Regarding claims 14, 15, and 16, the claims recite “bits” and “frozen bits”, however, it is not clear to which “bits” are being referenced in, presumably, the claimed “data”.
Prior Art Search
Due to the vagueness and a lack of clear definiteness in the articles used in the claims, the claims have been treated on their merits as best understood by the examiner.
A prior art search was performed using on the claims. The closest prior art is listed in the attached PTO-892. The prior art describes embodiments in which compress/decompression is applied in machine learning, however, none of the art appear to discuss performing polar encoding to generate decompressed weight data. An updated prior art search will be performed once the 112 rejections above are resolved.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin Knapp whose telephone number is (571)270-3008. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:30 pm (ET).
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, Albert Decady can be reached at (571) 272-3819. 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.
Justin R. Knapp
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2112
/JUSTIN R KNAPP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights