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
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0024]: Change “FIGS. 4” to “FIG. 4”.
Appropriate correction is required.
A substitute specification excluding the claims is required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.125(a) because the amendments filed on 12/02/2022, at paragraph [0087], Applicant change “FIG. 6” to “FIG. 5”, then reverted the back to “FIG. 6” on the amendments filed 12/31/2025 with a redundant amendment made to that paragraph. Due to the confusion of the amendments made on paragraph [0087], the number of amendments made, and because some amendments are hard to perceive (for example, on paragraph [0067], the strike through on “4” is difficult to see, making it seem like that segment is to read as “FIG 43” instead of “FIG. 3”), a substitute specification is requested.
A substitute specification must not contain new matter. The substitute specification must be submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. An accompanying clean version (without markings) and a statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter must also be supplied. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). See the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 below.
Drawings
All drawings are objected for failing to comply with PCT Rule 11.13(a), which requires the drawings be in black, and that all drawings be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, solid black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. The drawings, when zoomed into, show pixelation on the lines, numbers, and letters. One reason why this occurs is when Applicant submits blurry images to the USPTO, the blurry lines become pixelated. Another reason why this occurs is because Applicant created the drawings in a color other than black, despite drawings appearing black to the naked eye. Applicant is advised that the drawings are to be re-drawn with durable, clean, solid black, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined lines.
All drawings are further objected for failing to comply with PCT Rule 11.13(h), which requires that the height of the numbers and letters shall not be less than 0.32 cm. Examiner believes the letters and numbers in the drawings do not meet this requirement, although they have not measured every letter and number.
The drawings are further objected to because of the following informalities:
Figs. 3, 5, and 7: In each processing element, “Cotrolflow” is misspelled and should be corrected to “Controlflow”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 2: Delete the comma after “PE” as it affects flow and readability of the claim.
Examiner makes the following recommendations:
Claim 12: Examiner recommends to change the phrase “instructions, when executed by at least one processor of a device, that cause the device…” to “instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a device, cause the device to…” for better flow/readability.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
“device to perform the method according to claim 9” in claim 12 invokes 112(f). However, Examiner could not find the corresponding structure in the specification or drawings. Examiner finds the functions supported by the device (e.g., [0104]), but could not find any structural support to conclude the structure of the device. For the purpose of prior art examination, Examiner will interpret the limitation to be any circuit that performs the function. Examiner recommends that Applicant amends the element to include “circuit” either by adding “circuit” after device, or replace device with “circuit” (Note: Include an identifier to avoid antecedent basis issues with “first controller circuit” and “second controller circuit” in claim 9) to avoid having the limitation be interpreted under 112(f) (see MPEP 2181(I)(A)).
“data fetch unit that fetches the data from the data memory” in claim 14 invokes 112(f). However, Examiner could not find the corresponding structure in the specification or drawings. Examiner finds the functions supported by the data fetch unit (e.g., [0055]), but could not find any structural support to conclude the structure of the data fetch unit. For the purpose of prior art examination, Examiner will interpret the limitation to be any circuit that performs the function. Examiner recommends that Applicant amends the element to replace unit with “circuit” to avoid having the limitation be interpreted under 112(f) (see MPEP 2181(I)(A)).
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.
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 12 and 14 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.
Regarding claim 12 and 14, as described below in the 112(b) rejection, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions of performing the method according to claim 9 and fetching the data from the data memory. The application does not demonstrate that the applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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 12 and 14 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.
Regarding claims 12 and 14, the claims recite the claim limitations “device” or “data fetch unit”, which invokes 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. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed functions. In particular, the specification states that the claimed functions of performing the method according to claim 9 and fetching the data from the data memory are done by a “device” and “data fetch unit”, respectively. The use of the terms are not adequate structures for performing the claimed functions mentioned previously because they do not describe a particular structure for performing the functions. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure would perform the claimed functions. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are 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, 3-9, 11-15, and 17 are allowed over the prior art.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1 and 9 recite, among other things, wherein the control transfer path is configured as a tree structure that provides first control signals of the control signals in parallel to the first operator groups of the first PE and second control signals of the control signals in parallel to the second operator groups of the second PE in the fused PE.
Eisen et al. (US 20160202991 A1) in view of Dolly et al. (US 20180046916 A1) teaches a device for artificial neural network processing comprising of a first processing element and a second processing element that are reconfigured into one fused processing element. Eisen, in view of Dolly, does not teach that the control transfer path provides first control signals in parallel to the first operator groups of the first PE and second control signals in parallel to the second operator groups of the second PE in the fused PE. Parandeh Afshar et al. (US 20200012618 A1) teaches a device comprising of at least a first and second processing element that can be reconfigured into one fused processing element. Parandeh Afshar does not teach that the device is for artificial neural network processing, that each of the processing elements comprise of a controller, that a control transfer path provides first control signals in parallel to the first operator groups of the first PE and second control signals in parallel to the second operator groups of the second PE in the fused PE, and that the data transfer path is configured as a linear structure that sequentially connects a plurality of group operators. Martinez et al. (US 7809926 B2) teaches a device comprising at least a first core and a second core reconfigured into one fused core. Martinez does not teach that the device is for artificial neural network processing, that each of the cores comprise of a controller, and that a control transfer path provides first control signals in parallel to first operator groups of the first core and second control signals in parallel to second operator groups of the second core in the fused core.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILIO ALCANTARA-RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-4211. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00 PST.
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.
/E.A./Examiner, Art Unit 2183
/David J. Huisman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183
Prosecution Insights