DETAILED 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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0001] The present application is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 18/091,671 filed [[October 6, 2023,]] December 30, 2022, which claims priority to and the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/331,593, filed April 15, 2022. Applicant claims priority to and the benefit of each of such applications and incorporate all such applications herein by reference in its entirety.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed to products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") claimed as a product without any structural recitations; and because a computer readable storage medium can be comprised of transitory matter (ie. Carrier waves).
Examiner suggests adding "non-transitory" to the claim as “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising…” in order to overcome the rejection.
Claim 17. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising… “.
Variations of the term “storage”, for example in the term “computer readable storage medium” are not considered to limit a media claim to non-transitory embodiments because content may be considered to be stored on a signal during propagation and because many disclosures conflate storage media and signals. For example, US Patent 6,286,104 discloses: “the methods described herein may be implemented by a series of computer-executable instructions residing on a storage medium such as a carrier wave”. See the Board decision in ex parte Mewherter (10/685,192) where the Board affirmed 101 rejection of a “machine readable storage medium”. The decision is precedential, and while even precedential Board decisions are not considered to be examining guidance, the decision can be cited in an examiner’s answer.
Note that the decision also refers to Official guidance in the form of training delivered to the Corps: U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 USC § 101 (Aug. 2012 Update); pp. 11-14, available at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/101_training_aug2012.pdf.
Please note that even if the transitory types of machine readable medium are removed from the examples of machine readable medium cited in the disclosure, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a machine readable medium would still include transitory types unless there is a closed definition excluding them in the disclosure.
A claim drawn to a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 USC 101 by adding the limitation store in “non-transitory" or “tangible” computer readable storage medium to the claim.
Furthermore, according to the new "Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Medium" memo dated January, 2010, https://patentlyo.com/media/docs/2012/06/101_crm_20100127.pdf
A claim drawn to a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 USC 101 by adding the limitation store in “non-transitory" or “tangible” computer readable storage medium to the claim.
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/notices/101_crm_20100127.pdf
"Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Medium" memo dated January, 2010,
https://patentlyo.com/media/docs/2012/06/101_crm_20100127.pdf
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 18-25 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.
Claims 18-25 recites the limitation " The non-transitory, computer-readable medium " in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The recitation " The non-transitory, computer-readable medium " should be recited as " The non-transitory, computer-readable [[medium]] media ".
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 10 and 26 are duplicate copy.
Appropriate correction is 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kundu et al (US Pub 20230087364 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kundu et al teaches a computing system for optimizing utilization of graphics processors for machine learning inference tasks (Figs. 4-6, 11), comprising: one or more processors (405, 406 in Fig. 4A); a Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) (410-413 in Fig. 4A); and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that collectively store: a browser application; an application programming interface configured to enable the browser application to execute commands using the GPU (Figs. 4-5); and
instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations, the operations comprising: obtaining a first tensor (Paragraph 0321) as input for an operation of a machine-learned model (Figs. 6, 11; Paragraph 0139, 0164-0166) executed by the browser application;
mapping the first tensor to a second tensor having a different layout of values than the first tensor, the second tensor having a channel depth corresponding to an input channel dimension (Paragraph 0212) of a multichannel shader (Paragraph 0053) of the GPU (Paragraph 0313-0316, 0321);
inputting, to the application programming interface, the second tensor for processing by the multichannel shader (Paragraph 0313-0316); and
processing, using the GPU, the second tensor using the multichannel shader to obtain an output for the operation of the machine-learned model (Figs. 6, 11; Paragraph 0139, 0164-0166, 0313-0316, 0321).
Regarding Claims 2, 13, Kundu et al teaches the computing system wherein the first tensor is processed by a renderer to render a plurality of textures, wherein the second tensor represents one or more of the plurality of textures (Paragraph 0284-0286, 0321).
Regarding Claims 3, 14, 19, Kundu et al teaches the computing system wherein the renderer renders the plurality of textures using multi-render targets (Paragraph 0057).
Regarding Claims 4, 15, 20, Kundu et al teaches the computing system the operations comprising: reading, using a shader, the plurality of textures; and receiving, from the shader, a plurality of output values associated with the multi-render targets, wherein the plurality of output values are generated using a single draw call (Paragraph 0053, 0284-0286).
Regarding Claims 5, 18, 21, Kundu et al teaches the computing system wherein the first tensor represents a logical object and the second tensor represents a GPU texture object (Paragraph 0267-0268, 0321).
Regarding Claims 6, 22, Kundu et al teaches the computing system wherein the first tensor corresponds to an input for a source representation of a machine-learned model operation, and wherein the second tensor corresponds to a physical layout of the input on the GPU.
Regarding Claims 7, 16, 23, Kundu et al teaches the computing system the operations comprising: creating one or more GPU programs for performance during inference performed by the machine-learned model.
Regarding Claims 8-9, 24-25, Kundu et al teaches the computing system wherein the one or more GPU programs includes at least one rectified linear unit activation function; wherein the at least one rectified linear unit activation function is performed in a single pass.
Regarding Claims 10, 12, 26, Kundu et al teaches the computing system wherein processing, by the GPU, the second tensor comprises: for each thread of one or more threads: reading a plurality of input values from the second tensor; reading a weight value from a weight tensor once; and writing a plurality of output values to an output tensor.
Regarding Claim 11, the method Claim 11 is rejected for same reason as the apparatus Claim 1, since claim limitations are same in both claims.
Regarding Claim 17, the CRM Claim 17 is rejected for same reason as the method Claim 1, since claim limitations are same in both claims (the CRM non-transitory computer readable storage medium is shown in Paragraph 0219).
Conclusion
12. Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well.
It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
13. It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, figures, or lines in the prior art references any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331-33, 216 USPQ 1038-39 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
Examiner’s Note
14. Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIJAY SHANKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am- 6 pm.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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.
VIJAY SHANKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2624
/VIJAY SHANKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights