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 .
Claims 1-10 and 12 are pending in this office action and presented for examination. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9-10, and 12 are newly amended by the response received January 20, 2026.
Claim 3 is associated with a “Previously Presented” status identifier; however, claim 3 appears to contain amendment markup.
Claim 8 is associated with a “Previously Presented” status identifier; however, claim 8 appears to contain amendment markup.
Information Disclosure Statement
37 CFR 1.98 requires legible copies; however, NPL reference 1 of the IDS dated October 29, 2025, does not meet this requirement. Examiner recommends resubmitting the reference with better legibility.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the first vector data ‘include’” in line 12. However, for example, claim 1 recites the limitation “the data corresponding to the processing instruction ‘is’ first vector data” in line 11. Therefore, the subject-verb agreement should be made consistent. (If the difference was on purpose in order to convey different metes and bounds, Examiner recommends conveying those different metes and bounds in an alternative manner for clarity.)
Claims 2-5 are objected to for failing to alleviate the objection of claim 1 above.
In claim 2, line 6, “represents base address” should be “represents a base address” for grammatical clarity.
In claim 4, line 5, “address represent a base address” should be “address represents a base address” for grammatical clarity.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the first vector data ‘include’” in line 13. However, for example, claim 6 recites the limitation “the data corresponding to the processing instruction ‘is’ first vector data” in line 12. Therefore, the subject-verb agreement should be made consistent. (If the difference was on purpose in order to convey different metes and bounds, Examiner recommends conveying those different metes and bounds in an alternative manner for clarity.)
Claims 7-10 are objected to for failing to alleviate the objection of claim 6 above.
In claim 7, line 7, “represents base address” should be “represents a base address” for grammatical clarity.
In claim 9, line 5, “address represent a base address” should be “address represents a base address” for grammatical clarity.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the first vector data ‘include’” in line 15. However, for example, claim 12 recites the limitation “the data corresponding to the processing instruction ‘is’ first vector data” in line 14. Therefore, the subject-verb agreement should be made consistent. (If the difference was on purpose in order to convey different metes and bounds, Examiner recommends conveying those different metes and bounds in an alternative manner for clarity.)
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 1-10 and 12 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “obtaining a second vector data by extending the first vector data at the source data address according to the extension parameter” in lines 13-14. However, the original disclosure does not appear to provide support for this limitation. For example, the original disclosure (e.g., paragraph [0038]) does not appear to provide support for the first vector data being at the source data address included in the decoded processing instruction.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the source data address is for each data point of the plurality of data points of the first vector data” in lines 16-17. However, the original disclosure does not appear to provide support for this limitation. For example, the original disclosure (e.g., paragraph [0038], or paragraph [0031]) does not appear to provide support for the source data address included in the decoded processing instruction being the address at which each data point of the plurality of data points of the first vector data is located.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the destination data address is for each data point of a plurality of data points of the second vector data” in lines 18-19. However, the original disclosure does not appear to provide support for this limitation. For example, the original disclosure (e.g., paragraph [0048], or paragraph [0031]) does not appear to provide support for the destination data address included in the decoded processing instruction being the address at which each data point of a plurality of data points of the second vector data is stored.
Claims 2-5 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 1 above.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “obtain a second vector data by extending the first vector data at the source data address according to the extension parameter” in lines 14-15. However, the original disclosure does not appear to provide support for this limitation. For example, the original disclosure (e.g., paragraph [0038]) does not appear to provide support for the first vector data being at the source data address included in the decoded processing instruction.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the source data address is for each data of the plurality of data points of the first vector data” in lines 18-19. However, the original disclosure does not appear to provide support for this limitation. For example, the original disclosure (e.g., paragraph [0038]) does not appear to provide support for the source data address included in the decoded processing instruction being the address at which each data point of the plurality of data points of the first vector data is located.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the destination data address is for each of the data point of a plurality of data points of the second vector data” in lines 20-21. However, the original disclosure does not appear to provide support for this limitation. For example, the original disclosure (e.g., paragraph [0048]) does not appear to provide support for the destination data address included in the decoded processing instruction being the address at which each data point of a plurality of data points of the second vector data is stored.
Claims 7-10 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 6 above.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “obtain a second vector data by extending the first vector data at the source data address according to the extension parameter” in lines 16-17. However, the original disclosure does not appear to provide support for this limitation. For example, the original disclosure (e.g., paragraph [0038]) does not appear to provide support for the first vector data being at the source data address included in the decoded processing instruction.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the source data address is for each data of the plurality of data points of the first vector data” in lines 20-21. However, the original disclosure does not appear to provide support for this limitation. For example, the original disclosure (e.g., paragraph [0038]) does not appear to provide support for the source data address included in the decoded processing instruction being the address at which each data point of the plurality of data points of the first vector data is located.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the destination data address is for each data point of a plurality of data points of the second vector data” in lines 22-23. However, the original disclosure does not appear to provide support for this limitation. For example, the original disclosure (e.g., paragraph [0048]) does not appear to provide support for the destination data address included in the decoded processing instruction being the address at which each data point of a plurality of data points of the second vector data is stored.
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 1-10 and 12 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 recites the limitation “the first vector data at the source data address” in lines 13-14. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 1 recites the language “a plurality of source data addresses are a first set of consecutive addresses” in lines 20-21. However, the metes and bounds of this language are indefinite. For example, this language, as recited, does not appear to further limit any previously recited steps, or elements of previously recited steps, and therefore it is unclear as to the extent to which this language limits the claim. For example, it is unclear as to whether an instance of source data addresses being consecutive in any environment or context (including environments or contexts wholly distinct from the environment or context of the remainder of the claim, e.g., a completely unrelated device or method) would nevertheless still be sufficient to meet the limitation.
Claim 1 recites the language “a plurality of destination data addresses are a second set of consecutive addresses” in lines 22-23. However, the metes and bounds of this language are indefinite. For example, this language, as recited, does not appear to further limit any previously recited steps, or elements of previously recited steps, and therefore it is unclear as to the extent to which this language limits the claim. For example, it is unclear as to whether an instance of destination data addresses being consecutive in any environment or context (including environments or contexts wholly distinct from the environment or context of the remainder of the claim, e.g., a completely unrelated device or method) would nevertheless still be sufficient to meet the limitation.
Claims 2-5 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 1 above.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the determining of the source data address for each data point of the plurality of data points of the first vector data” in lines 3-4. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the determining of the source data address for each data point of the plurality of data points of the first vector data” in lines 3-4. Claim 1, upon which claim 2 is dependent, recites the limitation “determining a source data address included in the decoded processing instruction” in line 3. It is indefinite as to whether claim 2 is conveying that a source data address for each data point of the plurality of data points of the first vector data is included in the decoded processing instruction, or whether another interpretation is intended.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a source data base address … the source data base address represents base address of the plurality of data points of the first vector data in a data storage space, and the source data base address and the data size are included in an operation field of the decoded processing instruction” in lines 4-9. However, it is indefinite as to whether this source data base address is the same as, or different from, “a source data address included in the decoded processing instruction” as recited in claim 1, line 3.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the data point of the plurality of data points” in line 5. However, the antecedent basis for this limitation is unclear.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the plurality of data points” in line 5. However, it is indefinite as to whether the antecedent basis for this limitation is “plurality of data points” in claim 1, line 12, or “a plurality of data points” in claim 1, line 19.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the first vector data of the source data address” in lines 6-7. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a destination data base address … the destination data base address represent a base address of the plurality of data points of the second vector data in a data storage space” in lines 3-6. However, it is indefinite as to whether this destination data base address is the same as, or different from, “a destination data address included in the decoded processing instruction” as recited in claim 1, lines 3-4.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a received processing instruction” in line 2. However, it is indefinite as to whether this processing instruction is the same as, or different from, “a processing instruction” as recited in claim 1, line 2.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the first vector data at the source data address” in line 14. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 6 recites the language “a plurality of source data addresses are a first set of consecutive addresses” in lines 22-23. However, the metes and bounds of this language are indefinite. For example, this language, as recited, does not appear to further limit any previously recited steps, or elements of previously recited steps, and therefore it is unclear as to the extent to which this language limits the claim. For example, it is unclear as to whether an instance of source data addresses being consecutive in any environment or context (including environments or contexts wholly distinct from the environment or context of the remainder of the claim, e.g., a completely unrelated device or method) would nevertheless still be sufficient to meet the limitation.
Claim 6 recites the language “a plurality of destination data addresses are a second set of consecutive addresses” in lines 24-25. However, the metes and bounds of this language are indefinite. For example, this language, as recited, does not appear to further limit any previously recited steps, or elements of previously recited steps, and therefore it is unclear as to the extent to which this language limits the claim. For example, it is unclear as to whether an instance of destination data addresses being consecutive in any environment or context (including environments or contexts wholly distinct from the environment or context of the remainder of the claim, e.g., a completely unrelated device or method) would nevertheless still be sufficient to meet the limitation.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a decoded processing instruction” in lines 4-5. However, it is indefinite as to whether this decoded processing instruction is the same as, or different from, “a decoded processing instruction” of claim 6, line 2.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the decoded processing instruction” in lines 5-6. However, it is indefinite as to whether the antecedent basis for this limitation is “a decoded processing instruction” in claim 6, line 2, or “a decoded processing instruction” in claim 6, lines 4-5. Note that this limitation is also recited in claim 6, line 7; claim 6, lines 9-10; claim 7, line 10; and claim 10, line 4.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “each data of the plurality of data points of the first vector data” in lines 18-19. However, it is indefinite as to whether the recited “data” is a data point.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “each of the data point of a plurality of data points” in line 21. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, “the data point” has insufficient antecedent basis.
Claims 7-10 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 6 above.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the determination of the source data address is for each data point of the plurality of data points of the first vector data” in lines 3-4. Claim 6, upon which claim 7 is dependent, recites the limitation “determine a source data address included in a decoded processing instruction” in lines 4-5. It is indefinite as to whether claim 7 is conveying that a source data address for each data point of the plurality of data points of the first vector data is included in a decoded processing instruction, or whether another interpretation is intended.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a source data base address … the source data base address represents base address of the plurality of data points of the first vector data in a data storage space, and the source data base address and the data size are included in an operation field of the decoded processing instruction” in lines 5-10. However, it is indefinite as to whether this source data base address is the same as, or different from, “a source data address included in a decoded processing instruction” as recited in claim 6, lines 4-5.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the data point of the plurality of data points” in lines 5-6. However, the antecedent basis for this limitation is unclear.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “each data point of the plurality of data points” in line 4. However, it is indefinite as to whether the entities referred to by this limitation are the same as, or different from, the entities referred to by the limitation “each data of the plurality of data points” in claim 6, lines 18-19. Similarly, see the limitation “data point of the plurality of data points” in claim 7, lines 5-6.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a destination data base address … the destination data base address represent a base address of the plurality of data points of the second vector data in a data storage space” in lines 3-6. However, it is indefinite as to whether this destination data base address is the same as, or different from, “a destination data address included in the decoded processing instruction” as recited in claim 6, lines 5-6.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the first vector data at the source data address” in lines 16-17. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 12 recites the language “a plurality of source data addresses are a first set of consecutive addresses” in lines 24-25. However, the metes and bounds of this language are indefinite. For example, this language, as recited, does not appear to further limit any previously recited steps, or elements of previously recited steps, and therefore it is unclear as to the extent to which this language limits the claim. For example, it is unclear as to whether an instance of source data addresses being consecutive in any environment or context (including environments or contexts wholly distinct from the environment or context of the remainder of the claim, e.g., a completely unrelated device or method) would nevertheless still be sufficient to meet the limitation.
Claim 12 recites the language “a plurality of destination data addresses are a second set of consecutive addresses” in lines 26-27. However, the metes and bounds of this language are indefinite. For example, this language, as recited, does not appear to further limit any previously recited steps, or elements of previously recited steps, and therefore it is unclear as to the extent to which this language limits the claim. For example, it is unclear as to whether an instance of destination data addresses being consecutive in any environment or context (including environments or contexts wholly distinct from the environment or context of the remainder of the claim, e.g., a completely unrelated device or method) would nevertheless still be sufficient to meet the limitation.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “each data of the plurality of data points of the first vector data” in lines 20-21. However, it is indefinite as to whether the recited “data” is a data point.
Response to Arguments
Applicant on page 9 argues: “The Applicant has amended claim 12 to overcome the objection. Thus, the Applicant respectfully requests that the objection to claim 12 be withdrawn.”
In view of the aforementioned amendment, the associated previously presented objection is withdrawn.
Applicant on page 9 argues: ‘The Applicant humbly submits that claims 1, 6, and 12 has been amended to delete "the data is stored in the source data address as a first vector data".’
In view of the aforementioned limitation deletion, the associated previously presented rejection of that limitation is withdrawn.
Applicant on page 10 argues: ‘Claims 1, 6, and 12 have been amended to include "the data corresponding to the processing instruction is first vector data, and the first vector data include a plurality of data points" ... the source data address is for each data point of the plurality of data points of the first vector data, the destination data address is for each data point of a plurality of data points of the second vector data Support can be found at para [0031]’.
However, paragraph [0031] appears to disclose consecutive data storage addresses being respectively of the plurality of data points of the first vector data, rather than a single source data address. Similarly, paragraph [0031] appears to disclose consecutive data storage addresses being respectively for storing multiple data points of the second vector data, rather than a single destination data address.
Applicant on page 11 argues: ‘Claims 2 and 7 have been amended to include "The data storing unit 33 is configured to store the second vector data to the destination data address, where the source data address and the destination data address include consecutive data addresses."’
However, claims 2 and 7 do not appear to be amended to include the aforementioned language.
Applicant on page 11 argues: ‘Claims 4 and 9 have been amended to include "the destination data base address represent a base address of the plurality of data points of the second vector data in a data storage space". Support can be found at para [0037]: "The source data base address may represent a present base address of the multiple data points of the first vector data in the data storage space. The destination data base address may represent a base address of the multiple data points of the extended second vector data in the data storage space".’
However, it remains unclear as to whether the recited destination data base address is the same as, or different from, the recited destination data address in claim 1, line 4, and claim 6, line 4.
Applicant on page 11 argues: ‘Further, claim 6 has also been amended to include "a decoding unit configured to obtain a decoded processing instruction based on a processing instruction;"’.
However, it is unclear as to whether the decoded processing instruction of this aforementioned amended language is the same as, or different from, “a decoded processing instruction” as recited in claim 6, lines 4-5.
Applicant on page 12 argues: “Thus, the Applicant respectfully submits that the rejections of claims 1-10 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph be withdrawn.”
Various previously presented rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims. However, other previously presented rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) remain applicable, and in various cases the amendments to the claims introduce additional issues under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) and (b) — see the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 section above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KEITH E VICARY whose telephone number is (571)270-1314. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 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, 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 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.
/KEITH E VICARY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183
Prosecution Insights