DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4, 6, and 9-10 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 .
Specification
The 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:
In paragraph 31, the directional terms are no longer accurate because FIG.2 has been rotated with respect to the provisional. The examiner recommends replacing “top” with --right--, “bottom” with --left--, “left” with --top--, and “right” with
--bottom--.
In paragraph 42, applicant describes FIG.5, but the paragraph does not seem to match what is shown in FIG.5. Applicant says 44-bit encoding is shown. Where is this in FIG.5?
In paragraph 47, applicant describes FIG.7, but the paragraph does not seem to match what is shown in FIG.7.
In paragraph 48, applicant describes FIG.8, but the paragraph does not seem to match what is shown in FIG.8.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The amendment filed on November 12, 2025, is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
In FIG.1, at the top left, “SMM” now appears where “SRAM” appeared previously.
In FIG.2, the shading is not consistent with the originals. For instance, just looking at layer 1, there are 10 non-shaded boxes, whereas there were 11 in the originals. Please check the provisional drawings. The examiner also notes that there were arrows in the originals showing a flow from layer to layer. The arrows in the originals should not be confused with non-shading.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The drawings are objected to because of the following minor informalities:
In FIG.2, replace “LATER” with --LAYER--.
In FIG.2, based on the provisional application, layer 2 is not correctly closed off. It appears that the horizontal dashed line above layer 3 should be extended to the left end.
In FIG.6, insert a right-pointing arrowhead at the end of the connection between “MSG. POOL” and “DESTINATION = THIS” on left side.
The examiner recommends:
Improving the quality of the drawings. They are slightly pixelated.
In FIG.1, more clearly illustrating the arrows associated with number 18 and the bus controller. These arrows pass through dark portions of the drawings and are not entirely clear.
In FIG.1, section B, in the top two quads, more clearly illustrating the connection, which looks like a square with an ‘X’ in it. See the two lower quad connections for more clear illustration.
Reviewing original FIG.2. It appears that --FULL-- should be associated with the output line from the rightmost “MSG. POOL”.
In FIG.4, move instances of “43” so it does not overlap lines.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. 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/Recommendations
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2, replace the semicolon with a colon.
In line 13, use of “other” appears to be grammatically incorrect. The examiner recommends replacing “other” with one of --another--, --at least one other--, and
--others--.
In claim 1, the examiner recommends formatting as previously used on August 9, 2024, where a new line is started with “a reconfigurable chip, including”, and then further indentation is used.
Claims 2-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.121, which requires that claims include correct status identifiers. Applicant lists claims 2-3 as “(Previously Presented)” claims, when they appear to match the original claims.
In claim 9, the examiner recommends replacing “each site” with --each of the plurality of sites-- (similar to claim 10).
In claim 9, the examiner recommends inserting a hyphen between “memory” and “mapped”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 6, and 9-10 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.
Referring to claim 1, applicant now claims that the architecture does not include any of a dedicated router, a content-addressable memory, and a lookup table. There is no basis for excluding such components in the original disclosure and one of ordinary skill in the art would not conclude that applicant had possession of an invention excluding these components. Additionally, applicant’s specification appears to explicitly support the existence of at least some of these components. For instance, in paragraphs [0048] and [0052], applicant refers to a SiteM (FIGs.7-8A-C), which routes messages to their proper destination. From FIG.1, each tile has its own SiteM. Thus, there is a SiteM router for each tile that is dedicated to route messages for that tile. Thus, the architecture appears to have a number of dedicated routers. Furthermore, with respect to the lookup table, the examiner does not know the intended scope of such a component. However, as one example, paragraph [0036] sets forth a memory from which data is loaded/looked-up (e.g., A and B). Thus, the specification appears to broadly set forth a lookup table. Finally, with respect to CAM, while not explicitly recited in the disclosure, there is no basis for its exclusion as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a CAM can be used for many different functions, and that there is no way to know if applicant’s architecture did not possess a CAM used for some purpose in the system. As such, this limitation as a whole is directed to new matter. See MPEP 2173.05(i).
All dependent claims are rejected due to their dependence on a claim lacking adequate written description.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6, and 9-10 are allowed over the prior art. Note that any amendments to address 112 rejections may affect allowability.
Response to Arguments
On page 6 of applicant’s response, applicant notes that the claims have been amended in response to the claim objections. However, the examiner notes that the objections have not been addressed.
On page 7 of applicant’s response, applicant argues that nowhere in the specification, as filed, is a dedicated router, CAM, or lookup table disclosed.
This is not persuasive. The examiner notes that a router has been explicitly disclosed as described in the 112(a) rejection. Because there is one router per tile, it can be said to be a dedicated router. With respect to CAM and lookup table, their existence is not excluded explicitly or by setting forth alternatives that would preclude their existence (see MPEP 2173.05(i)). CAMs and lookup tables are used for a variety of different applications. Just as an example, applicant sets forth an L1 cache in paragraph 30 and SRAM in original FIG.1. Both of these are a type of lookup table, where a lookup is performed based on an input address to obtain data stored at that address in the cache/SRAM.
On page 7 of applicant’s response, applicant tries to further define what a dedicated router means according to how it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, i.e., as a control unit that maintains records of source and destination addresses as well as message contents, and that employs a CAM or lookup table to store routing information. Applicant states that this type of known router is not part of the invention because a SiteM, which is used instead, deterministically communicates only with neighbors to the right and bottom, thereby precluding a CAM or lookup table.
The examiner maintains that the SiteM, even if it routes to fewer destinations, still routes data. Thus, it is a router. There is a SiteM per tile, and there are multiple tiles (FIG.1). Thus, there is a dedicated router for each tile. To claim that there is not is a contradiction to the original disclosure. Additionally, as stated above, the claimed CAM and lookup table are known to be used in a variety of applications, not just in a router, and applicant is broadly excluding them entirely, not just excluding them from existing within the router (though such would also not be supported). A cache/SRAM, as disclosed, may be viewed as a lookup table. And there is nothing in the specification that would preclude a CAM from existing somewhere else in the system (e.g. as part of a translation lookaside buffer (TLB) implementation or some other implementation). Thus, there is no support for the negative limitation and the argument is not persuasive.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/David J. Huisman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183