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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12 January 2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the specification have overcome the drawings objections, and amendments to the claims have overcome the claims objections and the 35 USC 101, 35 USC 102, and 35 USC 103 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action filed 21 October 2025. Examiner notes claims 6-9 appear to be amended with a comma ‘,’ followed by the instances of “claim 4”. Best practice of amending claims would indicate claims 6-9 as (amended) and, given the small detail of change, mark the insertion of the comma with double brackets, such as [[,]]. See CFR 1.121.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [0045] the amendment to recite the compute unit as “306” however, the compute unit beforehand was recited to be “204” as in [0044];
In [0045] the amendment to recite the multiple cycles as “304a and 304b” is unclear as the corresponding structures in Fig. 2 appear not to be cycles;
In [0052] the amendment to recite the output as “810” from the combination stage (combine stage “804”) is unclear as corresponding structure in Fig. 8 is not the output of the combination stage.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: given the amendment to the preamble of independent claim 4, the preambles of claims 5-9 should similarly refer to the method as “The computer-implemented method of claim 4”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations in claim 1 are: “permute unit”, “digit matrix multiplier unit”, “input unit”, “compute unit”, “dot product unit”, “matrix combination unit”, and “output unit”.
The term “unit” has been interpreted as a generic placeholder. See MPEP 2181.I.A. Furthermore, these units are not modified by structure or acts for performing
the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The corresponding structure as described in the specification is identified as
follows:
the “digit matrix multiplier unit” 108 as illustrated in Fig. 1, is included in the matrix multiply unit 102 and is coupled to the load store unit 104 further coupled to the system memory 112, register file 106 further coupled to the permute unit 110, and includes the input 202, compute 204, combination 206, and output 208 as illustrated in Fig. 2, and further includes input and output connections and equivalents as further disclosed in ([0042-0044], [0053]);
the “compute unit” 204 is included in the digit matrix multiplier unit 108 and is coupled to the input 202 and combination 206 as illustrated in Fig. 2, includes using the systolic array of processing elements illustrated in Figs. 4 and 5 and bock matrix multiplier (PE) of Fig. 7 which are an array of dot product units 600, and further includes input and output connections and equivalents as further disclosed in ([0044-0049]);
the “dot product unit” 600 as illustrated in Fig. 6 includes a register, multipliers, and adder, the units arranged in an array as illustrated in Fig. 7, and further includes input and output connections and equivalents as further disclosed in ([0048-0049]);
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-2 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 “permute unit”, “input unit”, “matrix combination unit”, and “output unit”. These limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to provide adequate written description of the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions of this limitation. Dependent claim 2 inherits the same deficiency by reasons of dependency on claim 1. See rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below for further details as to the requirement for the written description.
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 1-2 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 limitations: "the same weight" in pg. 4, line 16 and “the multi-precision computations” in pg. 4 line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 2 inherits the same deficiency by reasons of dependence.
Claim limitations of claim 1 “permute unit”, “input unit”, “matrix combination unit”, and “output unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Regarding the “permute unit”, this unit is merely described in ([0011], [0041]). However, these descriptions describe functional operations of the unit, and no algorithm could be found in the specification. In the drawings, the unit is illustrated as “110” in Fig. 1. However, it is merely described as a black box. Thus, there is insufficient structure to perform the claimed functions.
Regarding the “input unit” 202, this unit is merely described in ([0044-0045]). These descriptions provide structure for the “buffered” aspect of the limitation via the buffers, however only functional operations of the unit described the remaining parts of the limitation. No algorithm could be found in the specification. The figures appear to illustrate the input unit is included in the digit matrix multiplier unit 102 and is coupled to the compute 204 as illustrated in Fig. 2, and includes the components illustrated in Fig. 3. However, no description of these components corresponding to the claimed functionality could be found. This is further evidenced with the corresponding specification objections raised as necessitated by the amendment to the specification.
Regarding the “matrix combination unit” 206, this unit is merely described in ([0044], [0047], [0050-0052]). These descriptions provide structure for the “accumulating” aspect of the limitation via the accumulator array 806, however only functional operations of the unit described the remaining parts of the limitation. No algorithm could be found in the specification. The figures appear to illustrate the matrix combination unit is included in the digit matrix multiplier unit 102 and is coupled to the compute 204 and output 208 as illustrated in Fig. 2, and includes the components illustrated in Fig. 8. However, no description of these components corresponding to the claimed functionality could be found. This is further evidenced with the corresponding specification objections raised as necessitated by the amendment to the specification.
Regarding the “output unit” 208, this unit is merely described in ([0044], [0053]). However, these descriptions describe functional operations of the unit, and no algorithm could be found in the specification. The unit is merely described as a black box. Thus, there is insufficient structure to perform the claimed functions.
Claim 2 inherits the same deficiencies by reasons of dependence.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 are rejected, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim, any intervening claims, and the 35 USC 112(a) and (b) rejections. Claim 4 is allowed, and claims 5-9 are objected to, as applies the indication of allowable subject matter regarding claims 4-9 stated in the Non-Final Office Action field 10/21/2025.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a combination of the particular mathematics of the “multi-digit elements into multiple matrices with single-digit elements of the same weight”, in combination with the dependent limitations.
The closest prior art found is US 20050125635 Symes et al. (hereinafter “Symes”, as cited in the Non-Final Office Action filed 10/21/2025), US 20200150923 A1 Muralimanohar et al. (hereinafter “Muralimanohar”, as cited in the Non-Final Office Action filed 10/21/2025), and US 20120030541 A1 Okamura (hereinafter “Okamura”).
Symes generally discloses deinterleaving data element when performing load operations and loading a number of data elements in a 3-D vector format from a continuous block of memory into three 64-bit registers (Fig. 17 [0142]). Although Symes generally discloses deinterleaving and converting a matrix into multiple matrices, they appear to be silent with disclosing the latter portion of the converting functionality, “multi-digit elements into multiple matrices with single-digit elements of the same weight”.
Muralimanohar discloses the second instance of converting, converting the data into fixed dimension (Fig. 3A, 304, [0038]) and fixed precision sub-matrices ([0024]). However, it appears they are silent with disclosing converting with the “multi-digit elements into multiple matrices with single-digit elements of the same weight”.
Okamura generally discloses a deinterleaving pattering where rows in a partial matrix have a row weight of 0 or 1 ([0229]). However, Okamura is silent with disclosing converting “multi-digit elements into multiple matrices with single-digit elements of the same weight”.
Response to Arguments
Drawings. The drawings objections are withdrawn based on the amendment to the specification.
Claim Objections. The claim objections are withdrawn based on the amendment to the claims. A new grounds of objection is raised as necessitated by the amendment.
35 USC 112(f). The invocation of the 112(f) interpretation is maintained.
35 USC 112(a) and (b). A new grounds of rejection is raised as necessitated by the amendment. Applicant respectfully submits that the specification, when read as a whole, does disclose corresponding structure and clearly links that structure to the claimed functions (Remarks p. 11).
With respect to the “permute unit”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The permute unit is disclosed functionally in [0011] and [0041], and does not include further descriptions of the particular structures or algorithms contained in the permute unit. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function of “to deinterleave, convert, and store” and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
With respect to the “input unit”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The input unit is disclosed functionally in [0044-0045], and does not include further descriptions of the particular structures or algorithms contained in the input unit. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function of “to decode, generate, buffer, and transmit” and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. This is further evidenced with the corresponding specification objections raised as necessitated by the amendment to the specification.
With respect to the “matrix combination unit”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The matrix combination unit is disclosed functionally in [0044], [0047], [0050-0052], and does not include further descriptions of the particular structures or algorithms contained in the matrix combination unit. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function of “to accumulate, apply scale factors, apply offsets, store, and transmit” and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. This is further evidenced with the corresponding specification objections raised as necessitated by the amendment to the specification.
With respect to the “output unit”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The output unit is disclosed functionally in [0044], [0053], and does not include further descriptions of the particular structures or algorithms contained in the output unit. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function of “to convert by rounding, shifting, and saturating” and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
35 USC 101. The rejections are withdrawn based upon the amendment to the claims.
35 USC 102. The rejection is withdrawn based upon the amendment to the claims.
35 USC 103. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 16, filed 01/12/2026, with respect to 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 1-2 have been withdrawn.
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 MARKUS A VILLANUEVA whose telephone number is (703)756-1603. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:30 am - 5:30 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, James Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
/MARKUS ANTHONY VILLANUEVA/Examiner, Art Unit 2151
/James Trujillo/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2151