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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Remarks
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
The Examiner acknowledges and generally agrees with the summarized description of the indicated allowable subject matter from the Final Rejection Office Action mailed out on, 10/14/2025.
Drawing Objections
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to the drawings to overcome the drawing objections. The Examiner withdraws the drawing objection due to amendment to the drawings.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 2, 4, 9, 11, and 17. The Examiner withdraws the 112(b) rejections regarding claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 17, and 18 due to the amendments to the claims.
The Examiner acknowledges and has fully considered the arguments regarding the amendments to claims 6, 13, and 19, but is not persuaded by the arguments. See new reasons for rejection below due to amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
The Examiner acknowledges the conclusion statement by the applicant.
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 6, 13, and 19 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.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites the limitation of: “when the first sub-multiplication operation matches the second sub-multiplication operation”. It is unclear whether the claim limitation is meant to be understood as the value of the first number to be multiplied in the operation matches the value of the second number to be multiplied, or if it is meant to be understood as the position of the element within the first sub-matrix corresponds to the position of the element within the second sub-matrix as to correctly calculate a partial product of the matrix multiplication, or if the first sub-multiplication operation and the second sub-multiplication operation are the exact same (in terms of values, positions in the sub-matrix, location of where the values are from, etc.), or if it is meant to be understood as both are multiplication operations. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the claim limitation as “when the first sub-multiplication operation and the second sub-multiplication produce a partial product”.
Furthermore, claim 6 recites the limitation of: “when the first sub-multiplication operation does not match the second sub-multiplication operation”. It is unclear whether the claim limitation is meant to be understood as the value of the first number to be multiplied in the operation does not match the value of the second number to be multiplied, or if it is meant to be understood as the position of the element within the first sub-matrix does not correspond to the position of the element within the second sub-matrix as to correctly calculate a partial product of the matrix multiplication, or if the first sub-multiplication operation and the second sub-multiplication operation are not the exact same (in terms of values, positions in the sub-matrix, location of where the values are from, etc.). For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the claim limitation as “when the first sub-multiplication operation and the second sub-multiplication operation does not produce a partial product”.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites the limitation of: “when the first sub-multiplication operation matches the second sub-multiplication operation”. It is unclear whether the claim limitation is meant to be understood as the value of the first number to be multiplied in the operation matches the value of the second number to be multiplied, or if it is meant to be understood as the position of the element within the first sub-matrix corresponds to the position of the element within the second sub-matrix as to correctly calculate a partial product of the matrix multiplication, or if the first sub-multiplication operation and the second sub-multiplication operation are the exact same (in terms of values, positions in the sub-matrix, location of where the values are from, etc.), or if it is meant to be understood as both are multiplication operations. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the claim limitation as “when the first sub-multiplication operation and the second sub-multiplication produce a partial product”.
Furthermore, claim 13 recites the limitation of: “when the first sub-multiplication operation does not match the second sub-multiplication operation”. It is unclear whether the claim limitation is meant to be understood as the value of the first number to be multiplied in the operation does not match the value of the second number to be multiplied, or if it is meant to be understood as the position of the element within the first sub-matrix does not correspond to the position of the element within the second sub-matrix as to correctly calculate a partial product of the matrix multiplication, or if the first sub-multiplication operation and the second sub-multiplication operation are not the exact same (in terms of values, positions in the sub-matrix, location of where the values are from, etc.). For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the claim limitation as “when the first sub-multiplication operation and the second sub-multiplication operation does not produce a partial product”.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites the limitation of: “when the first sub-multiplication operation matches the second sub-multiplication operation”. It is unclear whether the claim limitation is meant to be understood as the value of the first number to be multiplied in the operation matches the value of the second number to be multiplied, or if it is meant to be understood as the position of the element within the first sub-matrix corresponds to the position of the element within the second sub-matrix as to correctly calculate a partial product of the matrix multiplication, or if the first sub-multiplication operation and the second sub-multiplication operation are the exact same (in terms of values, positions in the sub-matrix, location of where the values are from, etc.), or if it is meant to be understood as both are multiplication operations. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the claim limitation as “when the first sub-multiplication operation and the second sub-multiplication produce a partial product”.
Furthermore, claim 19 recites the limitation of: “when the first sub-multiplication operation does not match the second sub-multiplication operation”. It is unclear whether the claim limitation is meant to be understood as the value of the first number to be multiplied in the operation does not match the value of the second number to be multiplied, or if it is meant to be understood as the position of the element within the first sub-matrix does not correspond to the position of the element within the second sub-matrix as to correctly calculate a partial product of the matrix multiplication, or if the first sub-multiplication operation and the second sub-multiplication operation are not the exact same (in terms of values, positions in the sub-matrix, location of where the values are from, etc.). For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the claim limitation as “when the first sub-multiplication operation and the second sub-multiplication operation does not produce a partial product”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, and 20 are allowed.
Claims 6, 13, and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The reasons for allowance and indication of allowable subject matter is for at least the same reasons found in the Final Rejection Office Action mailed out on 10/14/2025.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEROME ANTHONY KLOSTERMAN II whose telephone number is (571)272-0541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am – 3:30pm ET.
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, Andrew Caldwell can be reached at 571-272-3702. 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.
/J.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2182 /EMILY E LAROCQUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2182
Prosecution Insights