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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in this office action and presented for examination. Claims 1, 7-15, 17-18, and 20 are newly amended by the response received March 4, 2026.
Examiner left a voicemail for Applicant’s representative on March 25, 2026, and orally conveyed a message to a callee at the firm of Applicant’s representative on March 26, 2026, the message to be passed along to Applicant’s representative; however, no return call was received by close of business on April 8, 2026.
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: “accelerator interface unit executes the command…” in claims 1, 12 and 20. The limitation
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. The limitation above is being interpreted to cover accelerator interface unit 130, as including its constituent elements.
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 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 10 and 20 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the input queue coupled to the domain specific accelerator” in lines 5-6. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. Note that while claim 2 recites that each interface register comprises an input queue coupled to the domain specific accelerator (in other words, claim 2 recites multiple input queues in total), the aforementioned recitation of claim 10 does not specify a particular input queue amongst the aforementioned multiple input queues.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “an identified interface register” in line 12. However, it is indefinite as to whether this identified interface register is the same as, or different from, the “determin[ed]” interface register of the limitation “determining an interface register” of claim 20, line 9. Similarly, see “the identified interface register” as recited in claim 20, line 13-14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant on page 11 argues: ‘In response, claim 1 has been amended to recite "wherein the accelerator interface unit executes the command using the identified interface register." Support for the amendments can be found at least in paragraphs [0015] and [0018] of the published application (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0393851A1). Accordingly, amended independent claim 1 is in compliance with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).’
In view of the aforementioned amendment, the associated previously presented rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant across pages 11-12 argues: ‘In response, claim 7 has been amended to recite "the command register of the identified interface register." Support for the amendments can be found at least in paragraphs [0040] and [0050] of the published application (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0393851A1). Accordingly, amended dependent claim 7 is in compliance with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).’
In view of the aforementioned amendment, the associated previously presented rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant on page 12 argues: ‘In response, claim 8 has been amended to recite "the command register of the identified interface register ... output queue of the identified interface register." Support for the amendments can be found at least in paragraph [0060] of the published application (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0393851A1). Accordingly, amended dependent claim 8 is in compliance with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).’
In view of the aforementioned amendment, the associated previously presented rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant across pages 12-13 argues: ‘In response, claim 9 has been amended to recite "the multiplexor is to ... the not ready value" as interpreted by the Examiner. Accordingly, amended dependent claim 9 is in compliance with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).’
In view of the aforementioned amendment, the associated previously presented rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant on page 13 argues: ‘In response, claim 10 has been amended to recite "the input queue coupled to the domain specific accelerator". Support for the amendments can be found at least in paragraph [0023] of the published application (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0393851A1). Accordingly, amended dependent claim 10 is in compliance with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).’
However, the aforementioned amendment does not appear to wholly alleviate the associated indefinite rejection — see the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 section above.
Applicant on page 13 argues: ‘In response, claim 11 has been amended to recite "the response register of the identified interface register". Support for the amendments can be found at least in paragraph [0081] of the published application (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0393851 A1). Accordingly, amended dependent claim 11 is in compliance with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).’
In view of the aforementioned amendment, the associated previously presented rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant on page 14 argues: ‘In response, claim 12 has been amended to recite "wherein the accelerator interface unit executes the command using the identified interface register". Support for the amendments can be found at least in paragraphs [0015] and [0018] of the published application (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0393851A1). Accordingly, amended independent claim 12 is in compliance with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).’
In view of the aforementioned amendment, the associated previously presented rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant on page 14 argues: ‘In response, claim 13 has been amended to further clarify the claim. Support for the amendments can be found at least in paragraph [0018] of the published application (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0393851A1). Accordingly, amended dependent claim 13 is in compliance with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).’
In view of the aforementioned amendment, the associated previously presented rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant on page 15 argues: ‘In response, claim 14 has been amended to recite "broadcasting the value to the plurality of interface registers". Accordingly, amended dependent claim 14 is in compliance with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).’
In view of the aforementioned amendment, the associated previously presented rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant on page 15 argues: ‘In response, claim 15 has been amended to recite "a command register" to clarify antecedent issue. Accordingly, amended dependent claim 15 is in compliance with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).’
In view of the aforementioned amendment, the associated previously presented rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant on page 16 argues: ‘In response, claim 17 has been amended to recite "the method further comprises ... an input queue of the identified interface register". Support for the amendments can be found at least in paragraph [0069] of the published application (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0393851A1). Accordingly, amended dependent claim 17 is in compliance with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).’
In view of the aforementioned amendment, the associated previously presented rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant on page 16 argues: ‘In response, claim 18 has been amended to recite "popping, in response to the enable signal, a response value obtained from the domain specific accelerator". Support for the amendments can be found at least in paragraphs [0062] and [0078] of the published application (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0393851A1). Accordingly, amended dependent claim 18 is in compliance with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).’
In view of the aforementioned amendment, the associated previously presented rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant on page 17 argues: ‘In response, claim 20 has been amended to recite "an identified interface register ... wherein an accelerator interface unit executes the command using the identified interface register". Support for the amendments can be found at least in paragraphs [0015] and [0018] of the published application (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0393851A1). Accordingly, amended independent claim 20 is in compliance with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).’
In view of the aforementioned amendment, the associated previously presented rejections are withdrawn. However, the amendments appear to catalyze a further indefinite issue — see the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 section above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 and 11-19 allowed.
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 KEITH E VICARY whose telephone number is (571)270-1314. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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.
/KEITH E VICARY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183
Prosecution Insights