DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3, 6-11, and 14-19 have been examined.
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 .
Specification
The 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.
Claim Objections/Recommendations
In claim 1, line 4, the examiner recommends replacing “each logic path” with --each of the parallel logic paths-- (similar to other independent claims).
Claims 2, 10, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
It appears that something, e.g. --an operation--, should be added after “complete”, as the current language is grammatically incorrect. Hardware itself does not complete. An operation/function is completed by hardware. If this change is made, the hardware logic will invoke 112(f). Since there appears to not be any specific structure in the specification corresponding to this logic (only generic logic and logic blocks are disclosed), please also replace “hardware logic” with
--a circuit--.
In claims 3, 11, and 19, is “an output register block” the same thing as the single output register circuit of the respective independent claim? If so, the examiner recommends replacing “an output register block” with --the single output register circuit--.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3, “one or processors” is grammatically incorrect and must be reworded.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6, 14, and 17-19 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.
Referring to claim 6 (and similarly claim 14), the examiner cannot find support for the limitations therein in combination with the pipeline of claim 1, as amended. It appears that applicant is attempting to claim the system of FIG.7. And, in FIG.7, the examiner can find no intermediate register between first and second blocks of logic. Intermediate registers 604 appear to be shown in FIG.6, but not in FIG.7. Applicant’s claims are not directed to FIG.6. As such, applicant is asked to delete claim 6 unless applicant can point the examiner to support for claim 6 in combination with claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, the examiner cannot find support for a medium comprising multiple programs that can be executed by one processor, or comprising multiple programs that can be executed by multiple processors, to carry out the claimed method. Note that the language “at least one program” encompasses multiple programs. The specification describes that the method can be performed by various types of processors (in-order and out-of-order (paragraph 29), single-thread and multi-thread processors (paragraph 29), CPU or GPU or DSP (paragraph 27), and other devices (e.g. paragraph 72)). However, this does not necessarily mean applicant has support for multiple processors executing one or more (“at least one”) programs from the same medium. Additionally, paragraphs 8-11 seem to only describe a single program (not multiple programs) on a medium for performing the inventive method. The examiner can find no original description of a single medium having multiple programs thereon that either control a single processor, or control multiple processors. As far as the examiner can tell, there is only support for a medium storing a singular program that controls a single processor, with that processor being one of a variety of types.
Claims 18-19 are rejected due to their dependence on a claim lacking adequate 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 9-11 and 14-19 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.
The claims recite the following limitations for which there is a lack of antecedent basis:
In claim 9, line 8, “the first multiplexer”. Please replace with --a first multiplexer--, and then replace “a first” with --the first-- in line 11.
In claim 17, line 11, “the first multiplexer”. Please replace with --a first multiplexer--, and then replace “a first” with --the first-- in line 14.
Claims 10-11, 14-16, and 18-19 are rejected due to their dependence on an indefinite claim.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on December 24, 2025, disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 11,709,682 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 6-11, and 14-19 are allowed over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
On page 8 of applicant’s response, applicant notes that “one or more programs” has been changed to “at least one program” to address the 112(a) rejection.
The examiner does not see a difference between the two phrases, as the latter still encompasses a single or multiple programs. Since no other arguments have been provided, the 112(a) rejection of claim 17 is maintained.
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 David J. Huisman whose telephone number is 571-272-4168. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5:30 pm.
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.
/David J. Huisman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183