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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on January 03, 2023; March 19, 2024; and May 24, 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 20-25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to “at least one machine readable medium”, which includes both non-transitory and transitory forms of signal transmission (often referred to as "signals per se"), such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal or carrier wave. The transitory form of signal transmission is not directed to any of the statutory categories for patent eligibility. A potential amendment to correct this issue is to amend the claims to include the “non-transitory” language before “machine readable medium”.
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1)
Independent claim 14 recite(s) a method (a process).
(Step 2A: Prong 1)
The limitation of claim 14 of performing the steps of receiving, storing, receiving an indication, and causing, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a processor”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processor”, encompasses a user to mentally (or with aid of pen and paper) to decide that the agent for the processor has a defect through receiving attribute information for a transaction, storing the attribute information, receiving an indication to launch the transaction, and causing the transaction to be sent to an agent on a die of a processor. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 14 recites an abstract idea.
(Step 2A: Prong 2)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claim 14 does not contain any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 14 recites the additional elements of at least one test access interface of a test and debug agent for a processor, a plurality of configuration registers, a network-on-chip (NoC) fabric for the processor, and an agent on a die of the processor. The additional elements, as stated above, are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving, storing, receiving an indication and causing between the additional elements that may be considered components/processes), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 14 is directed to an abstract idea.
(Step 2B)
Claim(s) 14 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above (see Step 2A: Prong 2), claim 14 does contain additional elements. The additional elements provide no indication that they are anything other than a generic computer components or processes used in a well-understood, routine, and conventional function, recognized by one skilled in the art, when claimed in a generic manner. Accordingly, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 14 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15, this claim further adds to the transaction step of claim 14. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 14 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 16, this claim further adds additional receiving and causing steps. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 17, this claim further adds to the indication to launch the transaction step of claim 14. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 14 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 18, this claim further adds to the indication to launch the transaction step of claim 14. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 14 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 are indicated as allowable subject matter.
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 20-25 and 27 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 1, the prior arts of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest:
“cause, responsive to the indication, the transaction to be sent to an agent located on a die of the processor, the transaction to be routed through the NoC fabric to the agent, the transaction to be based, at least in part, on the attribute information, the transaction to be associated with scanning or testing the agent for defects,” when used in combination with all other limitations of claim 1.
Claims 2-13 are allowed for depending on claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, the prior arts of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest:
“wherein the agent to receive the transaction is connected to a device that is external to the processor and the transaction to be associated with scanning or testing the agent for defects is to scan or test a digital to analog boundary at the agent and scan test pins used to connect the device to the agent, or test boundary pins between the processor and an external device on a motherboard.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Choudhary et al. discloses “Streaming fabric interface” (see US2020/0327088)
Kalyanasundharam et al. discloses “Self identifying interconnect topology” (see US2019/0199617)
Crouch et al. discloses “Method and system for network-on-chip and other integrated circuit architectures” (see US2007/0113123)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID B FREDERIKSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571)272-7924. 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.
/DAVID B FREDERIKSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights