DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. The instant application claims priority, indirectly, to U.S. Provisional Application 63/345,732, filed May 25, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Applicant's submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated May 1, 2025 is acknowledged by the Examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. A copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the Examiner is attached to the instant office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities.
In Figures 5 and 11, much of the text if faint, fuzzy, blurry, and/or pixelated. The figures therefore fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(l), which states, “All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction.”
In Figure 11, some of the text is obscured by the diagonal lines. The figure therefore fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3), which states, “Numbers, letters, and reference characters … should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines. They should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. When necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct.”
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over corresponding claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,204,488. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant application are anticipated by or rendered obvious by (as explained below) the claims in the reference patent.
Claims under examination in 19/032,192
Claims in 12,204,488
1. A dataflow computing system comprising one or more processors coupled to a memory device, the memory device for storing computer program instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to perform softmax functions comprising:computing a maximum value and a difference between the maximum value and input values in a first compute stage;performing exponent calculations in a second compute stage; andcomputing a sum and a reciprocal in a third compute stage.
11. A system comprising one or more processors coupled to a memory device, the memory device to store computer program instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:computing a maximum value and a difference between the maximum value and input values in a first compute stage; performing exponent calculations in a second compute stage; and computing a sum and a reciprocal in a third compute stage.
13. The system of claim 11, wherein:the first, second, and third compute stages require first, second, and third compute units in the reconfigurable dataflow system.
2. The dataflow computing system of claim 1, further comprising:storing the maximum value in a compute unit's temporary storage of the first compute stage and using the stored maximum value in a next compute cycle of the first compute stage.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further including:storing the maximum value in a compute unit's temporary storage of the first compute stage and using the stored maximum value in a next compute cycle of the first compute stage.
3. The dataflow computing system of claim 1, wherein:the first, second, and third compute stages require first, second, and third compute units in the dataflow computing system.
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein:the first, second, and third compute stages require first, second, and third compute units in the reconfigurable dataflow system.
4. The dataflow computing system of claim 1, wherein:each of the first, second, and third compute stages requires 2N latency per sharded M dimension of an M*N shape tensor.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein:each of the first, second, and third compute stages requires 2N latency per sharded M dimension of an M*N shape tensor.
5. The dataflow computing system of claim 1, wherein:absence of multiple compute units each of the computing, performing, and computing steps with shared fan-in obviates predetermined placement of the first, second, and third compute units when conducting the softmax computations in the dataflow computing system.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein:absence of multiple compute units each of the computing, performing, and computing steps with shared fan-in obviates predetennined placement of the first, second, and third compute units when conducting the softmax computations in the reconfigurable dataflow system.
6. The dataflow computing system of claim 1, wherein: each of the first, second, and third compute stages requires 2N latency per sharded M dimension of an M*N shape tensor.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein:each of the first, second, and third compute stages requires 2N latency per sharded M dimension of an M*N shape tensor.
7. The dataflow computing system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are reconfigurable processors.
See claim 13.
8. The dataflow computing systems of claim 7, wherein the reconfigurable processors are coarse-grain reconfigurable (CGR) processors.
Obvious in view of WO2010142987 by Smith (cited by Applicant).
9. The dataflow computing system of claim 1, further including a Place-and-Route (PNR) function for translating and mapping CGR units to a physical layout on the physical level such as a physical array of CGR units in a semiconductor chip.
Obvious in view of WO2010142987 by Smith (cited by Applicant).
10. The dataflow computing system of claim 1, wherein the program may include a set of higher-level procedures, such as learning or inferencing in an artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) system.
Obvious in view of WO2010142987 by Smith (cited by Applicant).
11. The dataflow computing system of claim 1, wherein the softmax function is implemented using arithmetic logic unit (ALU) circuits having adders, multipliers, and dividers.
Obvious in view of official notice.
12. The dataflow computing system of claim 1, wherein the softmax function is implemented using a look-up table, wherein the look-up table is compiled to form a combinational logic circuit to provide the result of the softmax function.
Obvious in view of WO2010142987 by Smith (cited by Applicant).
13. The dataflow computing system of claim 1, further including a Place-and-Route (PNR) function for translating and mapping CGR units to a physical layout on the physical level such as a physical array of CGR units in a semiconductor chip.
Obvious in view of WO2010142987 by Smith (cited by Applicant).
14. A computer-implemented method for conducting softmax computations in a dataflow computing system, the method comprising: computing a maximum value and a difference between the maximum value and input values in a first compute stage; performing exponent calculations in a second compute stage; and computing a sum and a reciprocal in a third compute stage.
See corresponding claims above for claims 14-20.
15. The computer-implemented method of claim 14, wherein the dataflow computing system is a reconfigurable dataflow computing system.
16. The computer implemented method of claim 15, wherein the dataflow computing system is a coarse-grained reconfigurable dataflow computing system.
17. The computer-implemented method of claim 14, further including:storing the maximum value in a compute unit's temporary storage of the first compute stage and using the stored maximum value in a next compute cycle of the first compute stage.
18. The computer-implemented method of claim 14, wherein:the first, second, and third compute stages require first, second, and third compute units in the dataflow computing system.
19. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein:each of the first, second, and third compute stages requires 2N latency per sharded M dimension of an M*N shape tensor.
20. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the program may include a set of higher-level procedures, such as learning or inferencing in an artificial intelligence (Al) or machine learning (ML) system.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 6 is objected to as being a duplicate of claim 4. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 13 is objected to as being a duplicate of claim 9.
Claim 20 recites, “method of claim 3.” Applicant may have meant, “method of claim 13.”
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, 8, 10-12, and 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 pre-AIA the Applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites, “the first, second and third compute units.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites, “the softmax computations.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites, “the dataflow computing systems.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites, “the program.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites, “the softmax function.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites, “the softmax function.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites, “the program.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art. The claims recite the following subject matter which, in combination with the rest of the claimed invention, is not taught by the closest prior art: "computing a maximum value and a difference between the maximum value and input values in a first compute stage". The closest prior art does not disclose computing a single difference value between a maximum value and multiple input values. The closest prior art (Stevens et al.) discloses a hardware implementation of softmax in which data is normalized by computing difference values between the inputs and a maximum, but does not disclose computing a single difference value between one maximum value and multiple input values. The claims are therefore allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN DOMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5677. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 8:30am-6pm Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jyoti Mehta can be reached on 571-270-3995. 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.
/SHAWN DOMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183
Prosecution Insights