DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Claims 1-2 have been examined.
Claims 3-14 have been withdrawn.
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 .
Examiner Note
An examination of this application reveals that applicant is unfamiliar with patent prosecution procedure. While an applicant may prosecute the application (except that a juristic entity must be represented by a patent practitioner, 37 CFR 1.31), lack of skill in this field usually acts as a liability in affording the maximum protection for the invention disclosed. Applicant is advised to secure the services of a registered patent attorney or agent to prosecute the application, since the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting an attorney or agent.
A listing of registered patent attorneys and agents is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent attorneys and agents located in their area by writing to the Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 10, insert --an-- before “input” to match the wording used in line 3.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 1, “logic cell that can independently determine…and can control…”. While paragraph [0005] of the specification submitted on March 3, 2024, describes logic cells, the description is vague in nature and does not set forth sufficient structure so as to satisfy 112(f) interpretation. As such, broadest reasonable interpretation is taken and related 112(a)/(b) rejections are set forth below. The examiner recommends claiming a logic circuit instead of a logic cell to overcome the 112 issues. Otherwise, applicant can point the examiner to disclosure (supported by the original specification) explaining what specific hardware structure the cell encompasses.
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 1-2 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.
Further referring to claim 1, applicant claims one or more circuits to determine when said one or more computer instructions are ready to execute by accessing said one or more memories for the presence of said one or more nieces of data that are input to said one or more computer instructions. The examiner cannot find original support for determining readiness based on this presence. A cursory review of the specification revealed paragraphs 11, 36-37, and 44-45, but none of these paragraphs actually say anything more than the operation/logic cell comprises logic to determine when an instruction is ready to execute. They don’t explain what the readiness determination entails. As such, the addition to the claim is new matter that must be deleted unless applicant can point to clear support.
Further referring to claim 1, as explained above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions corresponding to the logic cell. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function 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.
Claim 2 is rejected due to its 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.
Claims 1-2 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.
Referring to claim 1, the logic cell+function(s) limitation(s) in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, as explained 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. Therefore, because the structure to be encompasses is unclear, the claim is indefinite and is 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.
Claim 2 is rejected due to its dependence on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burger, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0083337 A1.
Referring to claim 1, Burger has taught an operation cell data processor component (FIG.1, 100, or FIG.2, 111, or FIG.8, 805) comprising:
one or more memories (FIG.1, 152 or 155, or FIG.2, 210, 227, 235, 230, 241-243, 245, or 277, or FIG.8, 810, or 825, or 829) to hold at least one of one or more computer instructions (see FIG.8, instructions 812 in memory 810. All instruction caches also hold instructions), one or more pieces of data that are input to said one or more computer instructions (data stored in a register file, data cache, and/or main memory includes pieces of data (e.g. operands) on which instructions operation), and one or more pieces of data associated with past behavior of said operation cell data processor component (a data cache and register file store results of operations, i.e., data associated with past behavior);
one or more circuits to interface said operation cell data processor component to at least one external communication circuit (see FIG.8 and note that processor 805 interfaces with memory 810 and memory controller 840 (either of which is an external communication circuit). The interface would include ports/buses/pins, and, when the external circuit is the memory 810, the interface could additionally include the memory controller 840);
one or more circuits to determine when said one or more computer instructions are ready to execute by accessing said one or more memories for the presence of said one or more pieces of data that are input to said one or more computer instructions (at least one circuit will access scoreboard memory 245 (see paragraphs [0055]-[0056]), which indicates whether an instruction’s inputs are present/available, as known in the art. When the inputs are present, the instruction is ready to execute);
one or more circuits to perform memory transfers into or out of said operation cell data processor component by accessing said at least one external communication circuit and said one or more memories so as to transfer at least one of said one or more computer instructions, said one or more pieces of data that are an input to said one or more computer instructions, and said one or more pieces of data associated with past behavior of said operation cell data processor component (when the external circuit is memory 810, the memory controller 840 is a circuit that controls transfers of instructions/data between memory 810 and other components/memories within processor 805, e.g. it transfers data (inputs and outputs) between caches and memory 810. Circuitry will also perform memory transfers using the register file to store input operands and results. When the external circuit is instead interpreted to be memory 840, the circuits that access the memory controller to instruct it to perform a transfer would be the claimed “one or more circuits”); and
one or more circuits to control current or future behavior of said operation cell data processor component by accessing said at least one external communication circuit, said one or more circuits to determine when said one or more computer instructions are ready to execute, and said one or more circuits to perform memory transfers into or out of said operation cell data processor component (circuitry fetches instructions from memory 810 via memory controller 840 (again, either of which is the external communication circuit) into the processor component. The instructions ultimately make their way into memory 241 of window 210, where circuitry 245 indicates whether or not the instructions are ready to execute. When ready to execute, the instructions are executed to control current/future behavior of the processor);
whereby said operation cell data processor component is arranged as a logic cell that can independently determine when said one or more computer instructions are ready to execute and can control said current or future behavior of said operation cell data processor component (again, the processor component is a broad logic cell that determines, via scoreboard 245, whether instructions are ready to execute to control the behavior of the processor component. For instance, if an add instruction is ready to execute, the instruction is executed to control the processor’s behavior to perform addition).
Referring to claim 2, Burger has taught an operation cell data processor component according to claim 1, further comprising one or more circuits that provide communication between said one or more memories and said one or more circuits to control current or future behavior of said operation cell data processor component (this is overly broad. As discussed above, the processor includes various memories holding various information (instructions, results, other data, etc.). Circuits exist to communicate that information from the respective memory to its destination to control behavior in some way. For instance, transferring an instruction from instruction memory to an execution unit causes the behavior of the processor to change according to that instruction).
Response to Arguments
In paragraph 4 of applicant’s response (hereafter “the response”), applicant argues that “cell” need not be changed to --circuit-- because the specification describes the cell as a circuit.
Even if the cell is described as a circuit in the specification, 112(f) is still invoked for the claimed “logic cell”+function language found in the claims because “cell” is generic. If applicant chooses to use generic language in the claims, then 112(f) interpretation applies and the examiner is to interpret based on structure set forth in the specification. However, applicant does not provide sufficient structure and instead only provides a generic circuit. Thus, the claimed logic cell+function lacks adequate written description and is unclear. The examiner is asking applicant to not use generic “cell” language in the claim and instead directly claim a circuit because “circuit”+function language is not interpreted according to 112(f) (see MPEP 2181(I)(A)). If applicant wants to use “logic cell”, applicant has to point the examiner to sufficient structure in the specification/drawings. This sufficient structure has to be more than a generic circuit.
Based on paragraphs 8-12 of the response, the examiner has withdrawn the 112(a) rejection. Other arguments related thereto are moot.
In paragraph 15 of the response, applicant asks whether the withdrawn claims need to be re-instated or added into the written description.
The withdrawn claims do not need to be re-instated as they are properly restricted. Presumably, the specification already describes the invention corresponding to claims 9-14, so adding the claims to the specification would not seem have any effect.
In paragraph 21 of the response, applicant argues that the claimed cell has boundaries and that Burger does not teach a particular boundary that matches claim 1.
Applicant may be arguing that the claim is more narrow than written. There is no clear boundary claimed that distinguishes from Burger whose FIG.1 shows various boundaries. Also, an external communication circuit is not necessarily external to the cell. Instead, it may be within the cell but communicate with an external component, thereby making it an external communication circuit.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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