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
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,189,551. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim receiving raw data, generating intermediate/final data by performing an operation(s) on the raw data based on a bandwidth ratio with a data size ratio.
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.
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 9-15 are directed to an abstract idea of: (i) a fundamental economic practice, (ii) a method of organizing human activities, (iii) an idea of itself, or (iv) a mathematical relationship or formula. For instance, in Alice Corp. the court found that “intermediated settlement” was a fundamental economic practice, which is an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
Determining whether a claimed invention is patent-eligible subject matter requires determining whether the claim is directed toward a patent-ineligible concept and, if so, determining whether the claim's elements, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible Application. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int 7, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2350 (2014). The present claims recite the abstract idea of employing steps of receiving raw data, receiving a request to process the raw data; and transmitting intermediate data generated by performing an operation on the raw data or final data generated by performing a second operation on the intermediate data do not include any element which transforms the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. As stated in Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2358, the mere recitation in the Applicants' claimed a method of translating input data signal by listing steps of manipulating with information/data do not transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter, wherein claims recite (iii) an idea of itself and/or (iv) a mathematical relationship or formula, such as steps/limitations of manipulating with data without having structure to implement the data by machine. It should be noted that collecting data and recognizing certain data within the collected data set and organizing information through mathematical correlations have been examples of ineligible subject matter. See, e.g., Content Extraction & Transmission v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Moreover claims 9-15 recite set of steps of merely manipulations with data/information/instructions, such as: receiving raw data, receiving a request to process the raw data, and transmitting data generated by performing operation(s) on the raw/intermediate data. Moreover the claimed steps/limitations taken individually or as a whole are not meaningfully different than a generalized formulation for programs to solve mathematical problems of converting one form of numerical representation to another and subsequent similar to limitations/concepts found by the Court to be abstract idea (see Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 U.S.P.Q. 673 (1972)). Moreover the claimed steps/limitations taken individually or as a whole are not meaningfully different than using categories to organize, store and transmit information (see Cyberfone Sys. v. CNN Interactive Grp., 558 Fed. Appx. 988 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Moreover viewed as a whole (Claims 9-15), no additional claim element(s) are recited, which would provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, such as at least one of: (i)Improvements to another technology or technical field; (ii)Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (iii)Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (iv)Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (v)Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; or (vi)Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241/Tuesday, December 16, 2014/ Rules and Regulations), wherein, for example, on Page 74624 stated that “Limitations that were found not to be enough to qualify as ‘‘significantly more’’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: Adding the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer”. Therefore no active functional steps/limitations were found in the body of claim 9 as evidence of improvement, such as, for example: (i)Improvements to another technology or technical field and/or (vi)Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See also [See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al., 573 U.S.__, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014); See July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility – Federal Register Notice /Vol. 80, No. 146/Thursday, July 30, 2015/ Rules and Regulations; See May 2016 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility; See May 2016 Update Memorandum – Formulating a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection and evaluating the Applicant’s Response to a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection – Federal Register Notice/Vol. 81, No. 88/ Friday May 6, 2016/ Proposed Rules].
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 1-15 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.
In claim 1, lines 10-14, regarding “transmit…one of intermediate data generated by performing a first operation on the raw data or final data generated by performing a second operation on the intermediate data…”, it is not clear on the final data being generated since the intermediate data is the result of the first operation. Similar problem exists in claim 9.
In claim 1, lines 10-18, it is not clear whether the data size ratio is a factor for the transmission when the first operation is performed instead of the second operation since the data size ratio is a ratio of a size of the final data to a size of the raw data. Similar problems exist in claims 2, 9, and 10.
In claim 3, lines 1-3, it is not clear what is meant by “the final data is generated by performing the second operation on the intermediate data by the host” since in claim 1, “the final data is generated by performing a second operation on the intermediate data to the host”. The final data cannot be transmitted to the host when it is generated in the host. Similar problem exists in claim 11.
In claim 6, lines 2 and 3, it is not clear what is meant by “…comparing the bandwidth ratio with the data size ratio” when only the first operation is performed since the data size ratio depends on the final data which is only performed with a second operation. Similar problem exists in claim 14.
Appropriate correction in required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by RHEE (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0197530 A1), hereafter referred to as RHEE’530.
Referring to claim 1, RHEE’530, as claimed, a computing system (see Fig. 2) comprising: a memory system (sub-memory system 1000, 1000a, see Figs. 1 and 2) including: a plurality of memory devices configured to store raw data (memory devices 100 storing data, see paras. [0043], [0044], Figs. 1 and 2); and at least one processor (processing unit such as performing near data processing (NDP), see paras. [0006], [0030], and [0041]; also note: memory controller 200, see Figs. 2 and 12) configured to: receive the raw data by a first bandwidth from the plurality of memory devices, receive a request to process the raw data by a second bandwidth from a host (plurality of sub-memory systems acquire and store therein embedding table or the data about a learning model; the plurality of sub-memory systems update at least a part of the stored embedding table based on the training data, performing the inference operation and the training operation, see paras. [0031]-[0033]; also note: a request received from the host, see para. [0103] and query received from the host, see para. [0072]); and transmit, in response to the request, one of intermediate data generated by performing a first operation on the raw data or final data generated by performing a second operation on the intermediate data to the host based on a bandwidth ratio and a data size ratio (host device 2000 receive the at least part of the embedding table from the plurality of sub-memory systems through inference operation, see paras. [0032], [0037], [0054]; also note: reducing a size of data and reduce an amount of data transmission and solving bandwidth issues, see paras. [0030], [0054] and Fig. 11), wherein the bandwidth ratio is a ratio of the second bandwidth to the first bandwidth (reducing a size of data and reduce an amount of data transmission and solving bandwidth issues, see paras. [0030], [0054] and Fig. 11), and the data size ratio is a ratio of a size of final data to a size of the raw data (host device 2000 receive the at least part of the embedding table from the plurality of sub-memory systems through inference operation, see paras. [0032], [0037], [0054]; also note: reducing a size of data and reduce an amount of data transmission and solving bandwidth issues, see paras. [0030], [0054] and Fig. 11).
As to claim 2, RHEE’530 also discloses when the bandwidth ratio is greater than the data size ratio, the at least one processor generates the intermediate data and transmit the intermediate data to the host (host device may control the sub memory system 1000 to perform a polling operation for generating pieces of embedding data. The sub-memory system 1000 may provide the pieces of generated embedding data to the host device. The host device may generate training data using the pieces of embedding data received from the sub-memory system, see paras. [0098]-[0100]; also note: the host device may control the plurality of sub-memory system to perform an unpooling operation for generating pieces of partition data by partitioning the training data and to update, see paras. [0031], [0032], [0037], and Fig. 11).
As to claim 3, RHEE’530 also discloses the final data is generated by performing the second operation on the intermediate data by the host (host device may control the sub memory system 1000 to perform a polling operation for generating pieces of embedding data. The sub-memory system 1000 may provide the pieces of generated embedding data to the host device. The host device may generate training data using the pieces of embedding data received from the sub-memory system, see paras. [0098]-[0100]; also note: the host device may control the plurality of sub-memory system to perform an unpooling operation for generating pieces of partition data by partitioning the training data and to update, see paras. [0031]-[0033], [0037], and Fig. 11).
As to claim 4, RHEE’530 also discloses when the bandwidth ratio is smaller than or equal to the data size ratio, the at least one processor generates the final data (host device control the sub memory system 1000 to perform a polling operation for generating pieces of embedding data. The sub-memory system 1000 may provide the pieces of generated embedding data to the host device. The host device may generate training data using the pieces of embedding data received from the sub-memory system, see paras. [0098]-[0100]; also note: the host device may control the plurality of sub-memory system to perform an unpooling operation for generating pieces of partition data by partitioning the training data and to update, see paras. [0031]-[0033], [0037], and Fig. 11; near data processing (NDP), see paras. [0006] and [0030]) and transmits the final data to the host (the pooled memory system reduce a size of data by a pooling operation and reduce an amount of data transmission to the host device, see para. [0054], [0076], and Fig. 11).
As to claim 5, RHEE’530 also discloses the at least one processor is further configured to receive a notification indicating that a reception of the intermediate data or the final data has been completed from the host (the host may receive the at least part of the embedding table from the plurality of sub-memory systems through the inference operation. The host device may update the received part to generate the training data. The host device may provide the training data to the plurality of sub-memory systems, see paras. [0032], [0037], and [0099]).
As to claim 6, RHEE’530 also discloses the request is generated by the host based on a result of comparing the bandwidth ratio with the data size ratio (compare features of the pieces of embedded data with each other. The pieces of embedded data include embedding vectors, compare vector values such as slopes, forms, or sizes of the embedding vectors with each other; calculate scores of the pieces of embedding data received from the sub-memory system and generate the training data based on the calculated scores, see paras. [0099] and Fig. 11; also note: secure the sufficient memory capacity by a pooled memory structure capable of adding a memory capacity and may be implemented to perform NDP to solve the bandwidth issues, see para. [0030] and reduce a size of data by a pooling operation and may reduce an amount of data transmission to the host device, see para. [0054]).
As to claim 7, RHEE’530 also discloses the at least one processor comprises: a memory controller configured to control the memory device to perform a memory operation including a read operation, an erase operation, and a program operation (memory controller 200 may control the memory device 100 to perform a write operation (or a program operation), a read operation or an erase operation, see Fig. 2 and paras. [0045] [0049]); and at least one processor core (sub-memory system 1000a implemented as POP, SIP, SOC, MCP, COB, see para. [0041]; near data processing (NDP), see paras. [0006] and [0030]) configured to perform a processing operation including the first operation and the second operation (plurality of sub-memory systems acquire and store therein embedding table or the data about a learning model; the plurality of sub-memory systems update at least a part of the stored embedding table based on the training data, performing the inference operation and the training operation, see paras. [0031]-[0033]; also note: sub-memory system 1000a comprising memory controller 200 with operating components, see Fig. 1).
As to claim 8, RHEE’530 also discloses the processing operation is configured as at least one or more of a pulling operation, a vector multiplication, a vector sum and a matrix multiplication (element-wise operation on pieces of vector information of the pieces of data each other. For example, elements of the pieces of vector information may be summed up by the pooling operation. The pooling operation may be a process for integrating a plurality of vectors into a single vector, see paras. [0054], [0063], [0080], [0099], Figs. 5, 7, 8, and 11).
Note claim 9 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 1. Therefore it is rejected based on the same reason accordingly.
Note claim 10 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 2. Therefore it is rejected based on the same reason accordingly.
Note claim 11 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 3. Therefore it is rejected based on the same reason accordingly.
Note claim 12 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 4. Therefore it is rejected based on the same reason accordingly.
Note claim 13 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 5. Therefore it is rejected based on the same reason accordingly.
Note claim 14 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 6. Therefore it is rejected based on the same reason accordingly.
Note claim 15 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 8. Therefore it is rejected based on the same reason accordingly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Friedman et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0231957 A1) discloses out-of-order packet processing.
Aloni et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0014246 A1) discloses a method for transparent TCP offload with per flow estimation of far end transmit window.
Shattah et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0089641 A1) discloses a NIC having an ordered series of flow tables incorporating packet-handling rules and transferring contents of the packet.
Borshteen et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0172226 A1) discloses handling transport layer operations received out of order.
Elzur et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0151922 A1) discloses a system for processing packets including a NIC with an internal elastic buffer temporarily buffering a portion of incoming TCP packets.
Zur et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,240,162 B1) discloses a method for remote direct memory access (RDMA) congestion control over an Ethernet network.
UM (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0297502 A1) discloses a memory system for controlling garbage collection.
The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. When responding to this office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c).
In amending in reply to a rejection of claims in an application or patent under reexamination, the applicant or patent owner must clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. The applicant or patent owner must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TITUS WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-6pm.
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, Idriss Alrobaye can be reached on (571) 270-1023. 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.
/TITUS WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2181