DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submissions filed on 11/10/2025 and 12/01/2025 (RCE) have been entered.
3. Claims 1 and 3–11 are pending for examination in the request for continued examination filed on 12/01/2025. Claim 2 is cancelled. And claims 12–14 are withdrawn.
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.
4. Claims 1 and 3–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention and as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01.
a. Specifically, the following term(s) and/or phrase(s) in the claim language is/are indefinite owing to one or more omitted elements of the claimed steps.
i. As to claims 1, the expressions:
“determining if an at least one byte tensor move mask and weight (BTMW) of the at least two sections exceed a predetermined BTMW usage overflow” fails to interrelate essential elements of the invention as defined by applicant in the specification and thus is indefinite. Per the applicant’s specification, as shown in Fig. 10 and described in page 13, the step of “determining if an at least one byte tensor move mask and weight (BTMW) … exceed a predetermined BTMW usage overflow” is for the purpose of “UPDATING” the at least one hardware attribute.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner suggests amending the independent claim to explicitly include a step of:
“updating the at least one hardware attribute with the at least one BTMW.”
ii. As to the other remaining claim(s) not expressly identified above, they are rejected for either incorporating the aforementioned limitation by dependency or for reciting similar functional limitations or features.
For instance, at to claim 4, it additionally recites “determining if the at least two sections an at least one byte tensor direct memory access input and output (BTMD) exceed a predetermined BTMD usage overflow” which contains grammatical and idiomatic errors and should be revised to “determining if an at least one byte tensor direct memory access input and output (BTMD) of the at least two sections exceed a predetermined BTMD usage overflow.”
Moreover, claim 4 also contains similarly deficiencies for failing to interrelate essential elements of the invention as defined by applicant in the specification and thus is indefinite.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner suggests amending this claim to explicitly include a step of:
“updating the at least one hardware attribute with the at least one BTMD.”
Claims 6 and 8 each recite a similar “determining” step and therefore have the same deficiencies.
b. Appropriate corrections are therefore required.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claim 1 contains allowable subject matter directed to determining if (whether) an at least one byte tensor move mask and weight (BTMW) of the at least two sections exceed a predetermined BTMW usage overflow, and would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the applied 112(b) rejection set forth in this action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN C WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5906. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M..
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, Aimee J. Li can be reached on (571)272-4169. 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.
/BENJAMIN C WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
January 23, 2026