DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 3/20/2026. 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 final.
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 configuring a data selection circuit comprising a set of multiplexers to enable different configurations of an adaptive multiplier array to perform different dot products, wherein each of the different configurations corresponds to a different subset of the multiplexers being used to forward data to the adaptive multiplier array. However, the specification fails to describe different configurations of an adaptive multiplier array, or how forwarding data to the array by different subsets of multiplexers results in a reconfigured multiplier array (or different configuration of a multiplier array).
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 what the different configurations of the multiplier array are, what the configurations entail, how the configurations operate to perform different dot product operations, and how using multiplexers to forward data in a different way could result in a “different configuration” of e.g. 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. 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 configuring a data selection circuit to enable different configurations of an adaptive 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 3/20/2026 (hereinafter “Remarks” with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The corresponding claim rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that possession of "wherein the data selection circuit is configured to enable different configurations of the adaptive multiplier array, wherein each of the different configurations results in the adaptive multiplier array performing a different dot product on the received data" and "wherein each of the different configurations corresponds to a different subset of the set of multiplexers being used to forward data from the data selection circuit to the adaptive multiplier array," as recited by amended claims 1, 8, and 15, is shown in Figures 4-7 and Paragraphs [0044]-[0047], [0049]-[0051], and [0053]-[0057] of the instant specification.
The Examiner respectfully submits that these portions of the specification repeatedly state that a multiplier array is be adaptable or can be reconfigured, but fails to ever describe how it is reconfigured. The most detailed description of the limitations in question are found in Paragraph 0051, which states “the multiplexers 520 can be controlled or configured to deliver data to the multiplier array 525 to enable the different multiplier configurations 530. For example, to enable the first multiplier configuration 530A, the data selection circuit 515 may use a first set of multiplexers 520 to forward data to the multiplier array 525. To enable the second multiplier configuration 530B, the data selection circuit 515 may use a second set of the multiplexers 520 to forward data to the multiplier array 525. The 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, Figure 5 – to which this description refers – only shows each “multiplier configuration” as a black box, without any further detail or information. Furthermore, the “multiplexers” are also shown only as a black box. Such a description fails to provide any information as to how the multiplexers “forward the data”, how subsets of multiplexers are selected, how subsets of multiplexers “forward the data in a different way”, how the multiplexers “enable different configurations of the adaptive multiplier array”, what the different configurations are and/or entail, or how the multiplier array operates to perform the “different dot products”. In other words, the specification broadly states 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.
Furthermore, it is not clear to the Examiner if a “different configuration” of the adaptive multiplier array includes a change to the hardware, i.e. a logical change or a reconfiguration of the data flow through the array, or if it is merely a different set of data being provided to a fixed hardware systolic array. It seems from Paragraph 0048 of the instant specification (as well as the term “adaptive”) that a “different configuration” to the adaptive multiplier array is a different hardware configuration, e.g. wherein the data flow may be reprogrammable in some way. However, “forward[ing] data in a different way” would not enable a reconfiguration to the dataflow between cells of a systolic array, i.e. it would not logically change the connections within the array, since forwarding data to the array merely provides inputs. In either case, the disclosure fails to describe the operation of the adaptive matrix multiplier to perform any dot product operation, which fails to comply with the written description requirement as described 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 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