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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/07/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The present application was filed on 11/06/2020. This action is in response to the RCE, the amendments and remarks filed on 11/07/2025. In the current amendments, claims 1, 8-9, 11 and 18-19 have been amended and no claims have been added or cancelled. As such, claim 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b) or 35 U.S.C 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for application subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C 112, the application regards, as the invention.
The limitation “executing, by utilizing the plurality of devices, a portion of the compiler outputs in parallel to process the input concurrently” in claim 1 is incomplete and fails to specify why executing is needed for the claim. The claim therefore fails to distinctly define the scope of the invention.
The limitation “selecting the plurality of portions of the artificial neural network” in claim 8 is incomplete and fails to specify why executing is needed for the claim. The claim therefore fails to distinctly define the scope of the invention.
The limitation “selecting a first portion among the plurality of portions of the artificial neural network and a second portion among the plurality of portions to have an overlapping set of artificial neurons in the artificial neural network” in claim 9 is incomplete and fails to specify why executing is needed for the claim. The claim therefore fails to distinctly define the scope of the invention.
The limitation “execute a portion of the compiler outputs in parallel to process the input concurrently” in claim 11 is incomplete and fails to specify why executing is needed for the claim. The claim therefore fails to distinctly define the scope of the invention.
The limitation “executing, by utilizing the plurality of devices, a portion of the compiler outputs in parallel to process the input concurrently” in claim 18 is incomplete and fails to specify why executing is needed for the claim. The claim therefore fails to distinctly define the scope of the invention.
The limitation “selecting the plurality of portions of the artificial neural network” in claim 19 is incomplete and fails to specify why executing is needed for the claim. The claim therefore fails to distinctly define the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-10 depend on claim 1 and do not cure the deficiencies of the claim 1 therefore claims 2-10 are rejected to for the same rationales.
Claims 12-17 depend on claim 11 and do not cure the deficiencies of the claim 11 therefore claims 12-17 are rejected to for the same rationales.
Claims 19-20 depend on claim 18 and do not cure the deficiencies of the claim 18 therefore claims 19-20 are rejected to for the same rationales.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowed upon properly overcoming 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection.
Response to Arguments
No argument has been made in response to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lokesha Patel whose telephone number is (571)272-6267. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM - 4 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, Kamran Afshar can be reached at (571) 272-7796. 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.
/LOKESHA PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2125
/KAMRAN AFSHAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2125