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 .
OFFICE ACTION
This is a response to the papers filed on 2/6/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Rejoinder Request
The Applicant requests rejoinder of claims 1-8, as amended, has been approved by the Examiner.
Specification
On page 20, all text related to 35 USC 112 (f) or text addressing 35 USC 112 (f) or text about 35 USC 112 (f) must be deleted The specification must specify invention, not 35 USC 112 (f).
The Applicant argues that that a patentee is free to define the terms used in the patent application. See MPEP § 2100.
Examiner Response
In a patent specification, a patentee is free to define the terms used in the patent application regarding the patentee invention. However, Patent Application specification is about patentee invention, not about 35 USC 112 (f). Patent Application specification specifies invention, not MPEP.
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 1-8 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.
Claim 1 is rejected because it is unclear that the second occurrence of “a first voltage” on line 13 is the same or different from the first occurrence " a first voltage " on lines 5-6. If they are the same then "said' or "the" must be used accordingly. If they are not the same, then, i.e., “third” or” fourth” should be inserted accordingly for clarification and the claim need to amend to clarify and to define the difference.
All amendments should be fully supported by the disclosure, without new matter.
Claim 1 is rejected because it is unclear that the second occurrence of “a second voltage” on lines 13-14 is the same or different from the first occurrence of " a second voltage " on line 9. If they are the same then "said' or "the" must be used accordingly. If they are not the same, then, i.e., “third” or” fourth” should be inserted accordingly for clarification and the claim need to amend to clarify and to define the difference.
All amendments should be fully supported by the disclosure without new matter.
Claim 1 is rejected because the limitation “level shifters configurable to facilitate communication between the first region … and the second region”, as presented is unclear for the following reason:
The Applicant specification specifies “level shifters to provide multiple voltage levels … to multiple sectors “
One of ordinary skill in the art understand that voltage level shifters function is to shift/ provide/ enable / facilitate different voltage levels for/to different/multiple regions/ portions/ sectors (in a circuitry/ chip/ PLD/FPGA, for example).
In this case, the limitations “level shifters configurable to facilitate communication between the first region … and the second region” as presented, is unclear and does not make sense regarding how voltage level shifters, beside providing/ enabling/ supplying /facilitating different levels of voltage, can facilitate/ provide/ enable “communication between the first region … and the second region”
Claims 2-8 are rejected because they depend directly or indirectly from claim 1.
All amendments should be fully supported by the disclosure, without new matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC , set forth in this Office.
Claims 1-8 would be allowable because the prior art does not teach or suggest combinations of elements in claims 1-8 including, among other limitations, the following features in independent claim 1:
a second region of the plurality of regions comprising a second portion of the routing resources of the programmable logic circuitry and configurable to operate at a second voltage, and wherein the second voltage is higher than the first voltage, and wherein the programmable logic circuitry is programmed using voltage-aware placement and routing that assigns a critical path to the second region; and
a plurality of level shifters configurable to facilitate communication between the first region operating at a first voltage and the second region operating at a second voltage.
Claims 9-20, as amended, are allowed.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL DINH whose telephone number is 571-272-1890. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s Supervisor, Jack Chiang can be reached on 571-272-7483. The fax 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.
/PAUL DINH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851