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
1. This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 02/25/2025. Claims 1-14 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 13 and 14 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claim2 1-14 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, 13 and 14, "a table lookup operation" in line 7 of the claim 1 should be "the table lookup operation" in line 7, 8, 10 and 12 and "a node" line 8, 10 and 13 of the claim 1 should be “the node” in order to clearly refer back to the claimed invention. Similar issue for the other independent claims 13 and 14 should be fixed accordingly. Claims 2-12 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, the term "and/or" appears to be an issue when interpreting as "or" since having "or" would be unclear as according to which claim of the method and the data representing a transformed representation of a computer program is merely data structure. Thus, this claim is merely non-functional data structure on the medium. So please amend the claim 14 to remove “or” for the clarity.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
5. The claim 13 in this application is given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim 13 recites the limitations “a data interface for accessing …”, “a processor subsystem configured to determine, … determine and … output…” which have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “a data interface” and “a processor subsystem”, respectively, coupled with functional language “access”, “determine” and “output” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The examiner determines that the specification describes a sufficient physical structure for a data interface as follows on page 9 and a processor subsystem on page 10, 2nd paragraph.
“For example, as also illustrated in Fig. 1, the data interface 120 may be constituted by a data storage interface 120 which may access the data 040 from a data storage 021. For example, the data storage interface 120 may be a memory interface or a persistent storage interface, e.g., a hard disk or an SSD interface, but also a personal, local or wide area network interface such as a Bluetooth, Zigbee or Wi-Fi interface or an ethernet or fiberoptic interface. The data storage 021 may be an internal data storage of the system 100, such as a hard drive or SSD, but also an external data storage, e.g., a network-accessible data storage. In some embodiments, respective data may each be accessed from a different data storage, e.g., via a different subsystem of the data storage interface 120.”
“For example, the processor subsystem of the respective system may be embodied by a single Central Processing Unit (CPU), but also by a combination or system of such CPUs and/or other types of processing units. The software may have been downloaded and/or stored in a corresponding memory, e.g., a volatile memory such as RAM or a non-volatile memory such as Flash.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim 14 does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 14 is directed to signal per se as it recites, a transitory or non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising data. The computer-readable medium can be interpreted as transitory signal with BRI in light of the specification. Also claim 14 is
8. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims 1, 13 and 14 are corresponding to one of four statutory categories including method, system, and method respectively under step 1. The claims 1, 13 and 14 similarly recite “a computer-implemented method of optimizing a computer program for an execution environment that supports a table lookup operation, wherein the method comprises: accessing a representation of the computer program as a computation graph, wherein respective nodes of the computation graph represent respective operations; determining, for respective nodes of the computation graph, whether or not the respective node can be implemented by a table lookup operation, comprising determining that a node having multiple inputs can be implemented by a table lookup operation based on determining that the multiple inputs have a common ancestor; replacing a node by a first subgraph representing a first implementation if it is determined that the node can be implemented by a table lookup operation; and replacing the node by a second subgraph representing a second implementation otherwise; determining, for a node that can be implemented by a table lookup operation, that one or more further nodes of the computation graph can be fused into the table lookup operation, and determining that one or more further nodes from the second subgraph of another node can be fused into the table lookup operation; outputting a transformed representation of the computer program wherein the node and the one or more further nodes are fused into a single table lookup operation”.
The limitation of the claims 1, 13 and 14 of “determining, for respective nodes of the computation graph, whether or not the respective node can be implemented by a table lookup operation, comprising determining that a node having multiple inputs can be implemented by a table lookup operation based on determining that the multiple inputs have a common ancestor” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine for respective nodes of the computation graph, whether or not the respective node can be implemented by a table lookup operation by determining that a node having multiple inputs can be implemented by a table lookup operation based on determining that the multiple inputs have a common ancestor by visually analyzing the computation graph with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 13 and 14 of “replacing a node by a first subgraph representing a first implementation if it is determined that the node can be implemented by a table lookup operation; and replacing the node by a second subgraph representing a second implementation otherwise” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “replacing a node [changing a node]” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may replace a node by a first subgraph representing a first implementation if it is determined that the node can be implemented by a table lookup operation and replace the node by a second subgraph representing a second implementation otherwise by visually analyzing the computation graph with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 13 and 14 of “determining, for a node that can be implemented by a table lookup operation, that one or more further nodes of the computation graph can be fused into the table lookup operation,” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine for a node that can be implemented by a table lookup operation, that one or more further nodes of the computation graph can be fused into the table lookup operation by visually analyzing the computation graph with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 13 and 14 of “determining that one or more further nodes from the second subgraph of another node can be fused into the table lookup operation” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine that one or more further nodes from the second subgraph of another node can be fused into the table lookup operation with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claim 14 of “a transformed representation of a computer program determined according to the computer-implemented method” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine a transformed representation of a computer program according to the computer-implemented method with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 13 and 14 recite additional elements such as “accessing a representation of the computer program as a computation graph, wherein respective nodes of the computation graph represent respective operations”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 13 and 14 recite additional elements such as “outputting a transformed representation of the computer program wherein the node and the one or more further nodes are fused into a single table lookup operation”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 2 recites additional elements such as “the execution environment is a computation by a homomorphic encryption supporting at least an encrypted addition operation, an encrypted scalar multiplication operation, and an encrypted table lookup operation”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 3 recites additional elements such as “the table lookup operation is a hardware lookup table”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 4 recites additional elements such as “one or more operations from a first set of operations are never implemented by the table lookup operation; one or more operations from a second set of operations are implemented by the table lookup depending on the computation graph; and one or more operations from a third set of operations are always implemented by the table lookup operation”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 5 recites additional elements such as “the second set of types comprises at least an addition operation”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
The limitation of the claim 6 of “iterating over the computation graph to establish for each operation if a table lookup operation can be used for the operation” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “iterating (searching)” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may iterate over the computation graph to establish for each operation if a table lookup operation can be [determined to be] used for the operation with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claim 7 of “the second implementation is configured to quantize an input to an integer; apply an integer operation corresponding to the node to get an integer output; and dequantize the integer output” as drafted, is a mathematical operation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical operations but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “quantizing”, “applying an integer operation” and “dequantizing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may quantize an input to an integer, apply an integer operation corresponding to the node to get an integer output, and dequantize the integer output with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operations” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claim 8 of “an operation is applied to one or more input tensors and results in an output tensor, and wherein a table lookup operation is applied elementwise to a single input tensor” as drafted, is a mathematical operation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical operations but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “applying [math operation]” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may apply an operation to one or more input tensors and results in an output tensor, wherein a table lookup operation is applied elementwise to a single input tensor with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operations” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claim 9 of “reordering the computation graph to fuse at least one operation preceding the reshaping node with at least one operation succeeding the reshaping node” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “re-ordering” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may reorder the computation graph to fuse at least one operation preceding the reshaping node with at least one operation succeeding the reshaping node with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 9 recites additional elements such as “obtaining a reshaping node representing an operation that reorganizes elements of one or more input tensors without changing their values”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 10 recites additional elements such as “the transformed representation of the computer program does not comprise a table lookup operation being applied to an output of a further table lookup operation”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 11 recites additional elements such as “the transformed representation of the computer program does not comprise a reshaping operation being applied to an output of a table lookup operation, wherein the reshaping operation rearranges one or more inputs without changing their values”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 12 recites additional elements such as “the computer program represents the evaluation of a machine learnable model, for example an artificial neural network, a generalized linear model, a decision tree, or an ensemble model”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
Dependent claims 2-12 are also similar rejected under same rationale as cited
above wherein these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims are merely further elaborate the mental
process itself or providing additional definition of process which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 2-12 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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.
10. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Hunter (US PGPub 20150088919).
As per Claim 14, Hunter teaches of a transitory or non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising data representing-instructions which, when executed by a processor system, cause the processor system to perform the computer-implemented method according to any one of claim1; and/or a transformed representation of a computer program determined according to the computer-implemented method (Claim 25, The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 22, further comprising creating and re-using the at least part of the data structure at least in part by performing the transformed representation, wherein the transformed representation is an execution plan.)
Reasons for Allowance
11. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior-art, Wang (US PGPub 20230103430), in view of Schechter (US PGPub 20230359668) and further in view of Radhakrishnan (US PGPub 20250208924) failed to disclose of a computer-implemented method of optimizing a computer program for an execution environment that supports a table lookup operation, wherein the method comprises: accessing a representation of the computer program as a computation graph, wherein respective nodes of the computation graph represent respective operations; determining, for respective nodes of the computation graph, whether or not the respective node can be implemented by a table lookup operation, comprising determining that a node having multiple inputs can be implemented by a table lookup operation based on determining that the multiple inputs have a common ancestor; replacing a node by a first subgraph representing a first implementation if it is determined that the node can be implemented by a table lookup operation; and replacing the node by a second subgraph representing a second implementation otherwise; determining, for a node that can be implemented by a table lookup operation, that one or more further nodes of the computation graph can be fused into the table lookup operation, and determining that one or more further nodes from the second subgraph of another node can be fused into the table lookup operation; outputting a transformed representation of the computer program wherein the node and the one or more further nodes are fused into a single table lookup operation, as recited by the independent claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1, the closest prior-art found, Wang, Schechter and Radhakrishnan discloses of a computer-implemented method of optimizing a computer program for an execution environment that supports a table lookup operation, wherein the method comprises: accessing a representation of the computer program as a computation graph, wherein respective nodes of the computation graph represent respective operations; determining, for respective nodes of the computation graph, whether or not the respective node can be implemented by a table lookup operation, comprising determining that a node having multiple inputs can be implemented by a table lookup operation based on determining that the multiple inputs have a common ancestor; determining, for a node that can be implemented by a table lookup operation, that one or more further nodes of the computation graph can be fused into the table lookup operation, and determining that one or more further nodes from the second subgraph of another node can be fused into the table lookup operation; outputting a transformed representation of the computer program wherein the node and the one or more further nodes are fused into a single table lookup operation.
Individually, Wang teaches that it should be noted that the sequence structure context model and the sub-graph context model above may share a table corresponding to the table lookup operation. Therefore, different context data may have a common impact on entity representation learning, such that the entity may fully learn various context data. The first training module 50 is configured to: obtain a sample knowledge graph, the sample knowledge graph including entity nodes and edges; by a table lookup operation, obtain a first vector representations of the entity nodes and the edges in the sample knowledge graph, and obtain a second vector representations of position information of the entity nodes and the edges in the sample knowledge graph.
Schechter teaches that accordingly, the transformation engine 412 may perform a width reduction transformation that removes the unused or otherwise unnecessary data (e.g., by inserting a node to delete the data at the identified point, by replacing a node configured to perform several operations with another node configured to perform only those operations whose results are used, etc.). In this way, the transformation engine 412 optimizes the dataflow graph by reducing the computational resources needed by the dataflow graph to carry data through subsequent operations (e.g., by reducing network, memory, and processing resources utilized).
Radhakrishnan teaches that the compilation produces a single binary object that is deployed to the DPU at runtime, and therefore, the subgraph is replaced with a single operation, referred to as a “DPUOp”, replacing nodes in the subgraph. When encountered, this custom operation loads the compiled binary from disk and executes it on the DPU 344.
However, the prior art, Wang, Schechter and Radhakrishnan failed to disclose the allowable subject matter as “replacing a node by a first subgraph representing a first implementation if it is determined that the node can be implemented by a table lookup operation; and replacing the node by a second subgraph representing a second implementation otherwise”.
Claim 13 is the system claim, similar to the claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-13 contain allowable subject matter.
12. 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.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAE UK JEON whose telephone number is (571)270-3649. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/JAE U JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193