DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of prior-filed applications (63/649,700 and 63/685,209) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Specification
The title of the invention is not sufficiently descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The examiner recommends incorporating the concept of rounding an input multiple different ways to lower precision of operations in a systolic array.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following minor informalities:
In the 3rd and 2nd to last line, there is a lack of basis for “the value”. Is applicant referring to the value in line 1, or to one of the rounded values? If the former, the examiner recommends inserting a unique descriptor (e.g. given, input, etc.) prior to “value” in line 1, and before each subsequent reference to that same value.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 10, last line, delete the redundant “or” in “or or”.
In paragraph 68, replace “data store 330” with --data store 310--. This would achieve consistency with paragraphs 58 and 63. Further, applicant needs to use
--310-- instead of “330” because FIG.3A associates “Application” with “330”.
In paragraph 113, please correct “largely large”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following minor informalities:
In FIG.3A, replace “Storage Unit 330” with --Storage Unit 310-- because applicant has numbered “Application” as 330.
In FIG.3B, replace “330” with --310--.
FIGs.6A-B fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3), which states that numbers, letters, and reference characters should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. Applicant may leave a blank space in the hatching or shading where the text occurs so that it appears distinct.
FIG.6A is objected to for failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(L), which requires that every line, number, and letter be in black (except for color drawings). For 630, applicant uses white letters (D0-D3) with dark shading. Please use black text on a white background.
FIG.10 is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because it includes number 1000, which is not mentioned in the description.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) and/or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Please ensure any replacement is in only black and white to avoid pixelation and further objection. 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.” 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim is grammatically incorrect and must be reworded. The term “manner” appears to be used to indicate a resulting state or condition. A resulting state is not performed as claimed (it is the result of something performed). The examiner recommends claiming --wherein the shuffled manner is associated with (or “corresponds to”) an algebraic shuffle algorithm--.
Claim 5 is similarly objected to and a similar recommendation is made.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Replace “8 bit” and “4 bit” with --8-bit-- and 4-bit--, respectively.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2, replace “are” with --is-- to match “each” in line 1.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 10, insert --weight-- before “value”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
The claims in this application are 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. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitations are:
In claim 2, “random number generated by the random number generator”. From paragraph 142, this generator is interpreted as a linear-feedback shift register (and equivalents). If applicant does not wish to be so limited, applicant may insert
--circuit-- after “generator”.
In claim 3 (and similarly claim 20), “the index generator is configured to send a different index to each of the rounding circuits in a shuffled manner”. From paragraph 157, applicant states “index generator 1010, which includes logic circuitry to generate indices.” Logic circuitry is generic and insufficient structure for purposes of 112(f) disclosure. As such, broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) is taken and 112(a)/(b) rejections appear below. Applicant could claim an index generator circuit to avoid 112(f) interpretation.
In claim 6, “an index generator that is configured to generate a series of indices”. For similar reasoning, applicant has not adequately disclosed sufficient structure. Thus, BRI is taken and 112(a)/(b) rejections appear below.
If applicant does not intend to have this/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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3-6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 3, 6, and 20, as described above in the “Claim Interpretation” section, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure for the index generator to perform the claimed function(s). The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function(s) because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 4-5 are rejected due to their dependence on a claim lacking adequate written description.
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.
Claim1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims recite the following limitations for which there is a lack of antecedent basis:
In claim 1, last paragraph, both instances of “the value”. The examiner’s recommendation for the abstract applies here as well (use some descriptor prior to “value” in line 4).
In claims 2, 10-11, and 14-16, each instance of “the value” for similar reasoning.
In claim 7, last line, “the subset” because there are multiple subsets. The examiner recommends inserting --of the block-- at the end.
In claim 17, from line 8 through the last line, each instance of “the value” for similar reasoning given above.
In claim 19, line 6, “the first precision level”. Please change “the” to --a--.
In claim 19, last paragraph, line 1, “the weight value”, because it is preceded by numerous weight values (e.g. a weight value, a same weight value, multiple rounded weight values).
In claim 19, 2nd to last line, “the weight value” for similar reasoning.
In claim 20, “the weight value” for similar reasoning.
Referring to claims 3, 6, and 20, the “index generator” + function(s) limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, as described above, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Again, disclosure of only generic logic circuitry is insufficient. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 3 and 20 are indefinite because they are inconsistent with the disclosure. The claims set forth that the index generator sends a different index to each rounding circuit in a shuffled manner. However, FIG.10 shows that the index generator is separate from the shuffler. In other words, from FIG.10, it is the shuffler that sends the index values to the rounding circuits in a shuffled manner, not the index generator. The specification does not appear to describe an embodiment where the shuffler is part of the index generator. Thus, this inconsistency renders the claims indefinite because it is not clear which component is actually doing the sending. See MPEP 2173.03. The claim will be interpreted as written for purposes of prior art examination.
Claims 2-16, 18, and 20 are rejected due to their dependence on an indefinite claim.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7, 9-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Regarding step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test in MPEP 2106, all claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
Regarding claim 1 and step 2A (prong 1) of the test, the claim recites “to perform matrix multiplication involving the matrix”, “to round the value at the first precision level to a second precision level that is lower than the first precision level”, “to round the same value differently to respectively generate at least a first rounded value and a second rounded value different from the first rounded value”, and “to perform computations of the matrix multiplication involving the value by respectively using the first rounded value and the second rounded value”. Each of these constitutes an abstract idea that can be grouped into the grouping of mathematical concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Regarding claim 1 and step 2A (prong 2), the additional elements claimed include an AI-accelerator processor system being part of an IC and comprising: a memory configured to store a value of the matrix at a first precision level; and a systolic array to perform the multiplication and comprising a plurality of rounding circuits to perform the rounding, and comprising a plurality of processing elements that are configured to receive a version of the value via collective operation and perform the computations. These elements are all generic computing components recited at a high level of generality that are being used to implement the abstract idea(s). Per the courts, such does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)). The examiner notes that structures configured to X are not actually required to perform X. However, where the claimed storing and receiving are interpreted as being performed, these additional actions amount to insignificant extra-solution activities that are merely nominal or tangential additions to the claim. Per the courts, such activity does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
Regarding claim 1 and step 2B, the courts have determined that generic computing components to implement the exception and well-understood, routine, conventional activity do not amount to significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)). Further, storing and receiving information has been deemed by the courts to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), elements (i) and (iv) in the first enumerated list). As such, these additional limitations, considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Thus, claim 1 is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 2, generating a random number and generating a rounded value by comparing bits of the value to a generated random number constitute an abstract idea in the grouping of mental processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)). That is, one could generate a number randomly in their head (in a variety of ways), and perform a comparison to determine how to generate a rounded value (e.g. round up if the compared values are equal). The additional element of a random number generator is a generic computer component, which as described above, would not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, per the courts, alone or in combination with other limitations. As such, claim 2 is not patent-eligible.
Regarding claims 7 and 9, the additional element(s) correspond to generic computing components that do not integrate or amount to significantly more, alone or in combination with other limitations. Thus, claims 7 and 9 are not patent-eligible.
Regarding claim 10, multiple parallel circuits are generic and, thus, do not integrate or amount to significantly more. Further, a broadcast is a way to transmit information over a network, which has been held by the courts as well-understood, routine, conventional extra-solution activity that does not integrate or amount to significantly more, alone or in combination with other limitations. Thus, claim 10 is not patent-eligible.
Regarding claim 11, applicant merely further narrows the abstract idea by identifying the type of data involved in the math. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate or amount to significantly more. Thus, claim 11 is not patent-eligible.
Regarding claim 12, applicant merely further narrows the abstract idea by identifying the size of the data before and after rounding. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate or amount to significantly more. Thus, claim 12 is not patent-eligible.
Regarding claim 13, applicant merely further narrows the abstract idea by identifying the size of the multiplication operation. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate or amount to significantly more. Thus, claim 13 is not patent-eligible.
Regarding claim 14, applicant merely further narrows the extra-solution activity and what could be interpreted as size of the systolic array. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate or amount to significantly more. Thus, claim 14 is not patent-eligible.
Regarding claim 15, applicant introduces more math (multiplication and rounding of multiple values) and again only links the performance of the math to generic rounding circuits. As such, claim 15 is not patent-eligible.
Regarding claim 16, applicant merely further narrows the abstract idea by identifying the type of data involved in the math. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate or amount to significantly more. Thus, claim 16 is not patent-eligible.
Claim 17 is not patent-eligible for similar reasoning as claim 1 (with the storing and receiving being required).
Claim 19 is mostly not patent-eligible for the same reasoning as claim 1. With regard to the machine learning model and the value being a weight value, this amounts to the type of data which is part of the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed over the prior art.
The examiner notes the following relevant prior art:
Meyer (US 2023/0004384) has taught a systolic array in which each row of PEs has a corresponding reducer circuit (FIG.1A). The reducer, in one embodiment, may reduce the same input to generate two different outputs, one comprising leading bits of the input, and one comprising trailing bits of the input (FIG.4C). These smaller inputs are then used in MAC operations with reduced hardware size (FIG.9). The examiner notes that the disclosed reduction is not rounding (e.g. paragraph 147 gives an example where an input is basically split into two smaller portions, not rounded two different ways).
Khan (US 2023/0359694), as cited by applicant, has taught a systolic array with rounding of output values for low-precision matrix multiplication for machine learning.
Vantrease (US 2019/0294413) has taught a systolic array with data quantization (lowering precision of input values).
Zhang et al., has taught “FAST: DNN Training Under Variable Precision Block Floating Point with Stochastic Rounding”, in which inputs are converted/rounded to BFP format prior to entering a systolic array of fMAC units.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record, either individually or in combination, has not taught, together with all other claimed features, the limitations of the last two paragraphs. Claims 17 and 19 are allowed for similar reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David J. Huisman whose telephone number is 571-272-4168. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jyoti Mehta, can be reached at 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.
/David J. Huisman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183
Prosecution Insights