DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 7/2/2026. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims. This Office Action is made non-final after the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed 7/22/2026.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per independent Claims 1, 8 and 15, each recites using different set(s) of multiplexers to forward data to an adaptive multiplier array in ways that enable different operational configurations of the adaptive multiplier array to perform different dot products. However, these limitations are considered purely result-oriented limitations because they recite a desired result, i.e. “to forward the received data to the adaptive multiplier array in a [first/second] way that enables a [first/second] operational configuration of the adaptive multiplier array to perform a [first/second] dot product on the received data”, without reciting any steps detailing how to accomplish the result. For example, stating that a set of multiplexers is “used” in a particular way to forward data does not describe a way to accomplish the claimed result of enabling different operational configurations of the multiplier array to perform different dot product operations. In other words, the claims do not describe how the multiplexers are used, how the data is forwarded, how the multiplier array is enabled to perform different dot products, or how the multiplier array actually performs the different dot products. Claim limitations such as this are considered purely result-oriented.
Purely result-oriented limitations fail to comply with the written description requirement when the way to achieve the result is not known to those skilled in the art, i.e. when it is the inventor’s purported contribution to the art. When this is the case, the way to achieve the result must be recited in the claim in a manner that is commensurate with the supporting disclosure to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). The way to achieve the result does not necessarily need to be recited in as much detail as the preferred embodiment(s) described in the disclosure as long as those skilled in the art would understand the inventor to have invented, and been in possession of, the invention as broadly claimed.
In this case, using different sets of multiplexers to enable different configurations of an adaptive multiplier array is clearly the inventor’s purported contribution to the art. See e.g. Paragraphs 0003-0006 and 0018-0019 of the instant specification. However, limitation(s) that simply recite “us[ing] a [first/second] set of the set of multiplexers” or “forward[ing]…data to the adaptive multiplier array in a [first/second] way” do not provide adequate disclosure within the claims themselves, and thus fails to be commensurate with the supporting disclosure in the instant specification. Therefore, the claims in question lack the specificity necessary to provide sufficient written description support under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) such that those skilled in the art would understand the inventor to have invented, and been in possession of, the claimed invention.
Additionally per independent Claims 1, 8 and 15, each recites using a first set of a set of multiplexers to forward data to an adaptive multiplier array in a first way that enables a first operational configuration of the adaptive multiplier array to perform a first dot product, and using a second (different) set of the set of multiplexers to forward data to the adaptive multiplier array in a second (different) way that enables a second operational configuration of the adaptive multiplier array to perform a second dot product. However, the specification fails to describe different operational configurations of an adaptive multiplier array or how forwarding data to the array by different subsets of multiplexers results in a reconfigured or differently configured multiplier array. In other words, the specification fails to describe how the multiplexers and multiplier array operate to perform different dot product operations.
The specification discloses in Paragraph 0051 that the “data selection circuit includes multiplexers that forward the data to the multiplier array 525 to support different multiplier configurations”, and moreover that “different sets of multiplexers 520 may forward the data in a different way so that the multiplier array 525 performs different dot products or matrix multiplications on the data.” However, this fails to describe how the data is selected or forwarded, or how using multiplexers to forward data in a different way could result in a different operational configuration of a systolic array of multiplier circuits.
The specification also discloses in Paragraph 0058 that the “dot products may differ according to size (number of bits of the operands), number of channels, output precision, and output matrices. FIG. 7 is a chart illustrating different multiplier array configurations”. However, the chart in Figure 7 and the corresponding description in the specification merely lists input and output matrix sizes, precisions, etc., but does not provide any example of how the multiplier array is “configured” to perform dot product operations with the various inputs and outputs, or how the multiplier array actually performs the different dot products. Similarly, Figure 5 shows an “adaptive multiplier array” as a black box with “multiplier configuration” black boxes inside of it. This too fails to show any actual configuration of a multiplier array, how it could be configured to perform different operations on different inputs and outputs, or how multiplexers forwarding data to the multiplier array could enable the array to become reconfigured to perform a different operation.
Accordingly, the specification fails to describe using set(s) of multiplexers to forward data in different ways that enable different operational configurations of a multiplier array to perform different dot products in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
As per the dependent Claims 3-7, 10-14, and 17-20, they are rejected for the reasons presented above, due to their dependency upon their respective base claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/22/2026 (hereinafter “Remarks”) with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pages 9-10 of the Remarks that Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite how the claimed configurations operate, rather than merely reciting a desired result.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the above claim rejections, the limitations that recite “us[ing] a…set of the set of multiplexers to forward the received data to the adaptive multiplier array in a…way” does not recite any steps detailing how to accomplish the claimed result of “enabl[ing]…operational configuration[s] of the adaptive multiplier array to perform [different] dot product[s] on the received data”. For example, stating that a set of multiplexers is “used” in a particular way to forward data does not describe how the multiplexers are used, how the data is forwarded, how the multiplier array is enabled to perform different dot products, or how the multiplier array actually performs the different dot products.
Moreover, the Examiner notes that the portions of the specification to which Applicant refers on Pages 9-10 of the Remarks also fails to describe the operation of the multiplexers to forward data or the operation of the adaptive matrix multiplier to perform any dot product operation. For example, Figure 5 only shows the “multiplexers” as a black box, and Figure 6 merely states “configure the data selection circuit to enable a [first/second] systolic array configuration corresponding to the [first/second] dot product”. Such a description fails to provide any information as to how the multiplexers forward the data, how different sets of multiplexers forward data in different ways, how the multiplexers enable different configurations of the adaptive multiplier array, or how the multiplier array operates to perform different dot products on the forwarded data. In other words, the specification as well as the claims broadly state in result-oriented language what the intended result(s) are without describing any method or operation or example of how the result(s) are achieved, thus failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Applicant argues on Page 10-11 that the first and second operational configurations are expressly described by the chart shown in Figure 7.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the chart in Figure 7 is merely a result-oriented list of different configuration options, without any description of how the multiplier array operates to achieve any of the possible configurations. In other words, the chart lists various matrix sizes, precisions, etc., but does not explain how the multiplier array is “configured” to perform dot product operations with the various inputs, outputs, precisions, etc. Each row in the chart states what the intended result(s) are without describing any method or operation for achieving the result(s), or providing an example of how the result(s) are achieved.
Applicant argues on Pages 11-12 that using “a first set of the set of multiplexers” and “a second set of the set of multiplexers, different from the first set of multiplexers” to forward data to the multiplier array is described by the originally filed application. For example, Applicant argues that the specification explains that the data selection circuit includes “multiplexers 520 that are used to forward the data to the multiplier array 525 to support different multiplier configurations” and that the multiplexers are “controlled or configured to deliver data to the multiplier array 525 to enable the different multiplier configurations 530” by “forward[ing] the data in a different way.”
The Examiner respectfully submits that, while such a description discloses that different multiplexers are selected to enable or support different multiplier configurations, the description fails to explain how the different multiplexers enable or support different multiplier configurations (i.e. different multiplier or dot-product operations). As noted above, such a description fails to provide any information as to how the multiplexers forward the data, how different sets of multiplexers forward data in different ways, how the multiplexers enable different configurations of the adaptive multiplier array, or how the multiplier array operates to perform different dot products on the forwarded data.
Applicant argues on Page 12 of the Remarks that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how multiplexers can select which data from vector register(s) is provided to particular inputs of the adaptive multiplier array, producing different configurations that perform different dot products.
The Examiner respectfully submits that this is merely a conclusory statement and Applicant has not provided evidence that the manner in which selecting different multiplexers can enable a multiplier array to perform dot products on different input/output precision data, different sized matrices, a different number of channels, or different output matrices is so well known in the art that it need not be described in the specification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW SANDIFER whose telephone number is (571)270-5175. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30am-6pm.
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.
/MATTHEW D SANDIFER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights