DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) 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.
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), because the claim limitation 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 is: “circuitry to receive …” in claims 1-7 and “processors to receive …” in claims 15-20.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it is 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 limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) 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 1-7 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Claims 1-7 and 15-20 are rejected as “single means” claims. See MPEP 2181(V).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chalfin (US 2024/0,036,919).
Referring to claims 1, 8 and 15, Chalfin discloses a processor (fig. 1, processor) comprising:
circuitry (fig. 1, processor) to receive a kernel invocation (fig. 4, sequence of commands to be executed 410; fig. 2, commands stream 120) [comprising input parameter (para.0013, command identifier)] indicating dependency of second software kernel (fig. 2, task 210; para.0013, second command) on first software kernel (fig. 2, task 220; para.0013, first command), and
as a result (fig. 4, generating tasks 420) of receiving the kernel invocation, schedule the second software kernel and the first software kernel to be performed according to the dependency (fig. 2, tasks 210/220; para.0047, dependency tracker 16 schedules task 210/220).
As to claims 2-3, 9-10 and 16-17, Chalfin discloses the processor of claim 1, wherein the dependency indicates that the first software kernel is to be performed before the second software kernel (para.0010, first/parent command before second/child command).
As to claims 4, 11 and 18, Chalfin discloses the processor of claim 1, wherein the circuitry is to cause the first software kernel and the second software kernel to be performed based on the dependency (para.0010, dependency tracker).
As to claims 5, 12 and 19, Chalfin discloses the processor of claim 1, wherein the first software kernels and the second software kernel are associated with two grids (para.0029, concurrent processing) comprising a thread (para.0029, threads) to perform the first software kernel and the second software kernel based on the dependency (para.0010, dependency tracker).
As to claims 6 and 13, Chalfin discloses the processor of claim 1, wherein the circuitry is to cause the first software kernel to indicate dependency of the second software kernel using a graphics processing unit GPU (para.0029, GPU).
As to claims 7, 14 and 20, Chalfin discloses the processor of claim 1, wherein the circuitry is to cause the first software kernel and the second software kernel to be scheduled to be performed in an order (para.0047, sequence of commands; para.0048, desired order) based on the dependency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are not deemed to be persuasive.
Applicant argues that claims 1-7 and 15-20 should not invoke 35 USC 112(f) as “circuitry” and “processors” recite sufficient structure, and the claims should be considered comply with 35 USC 112(a) (pp.7-8).
In applicant’s specification, the term “circuitry” and “processors” have been referred to various of combinations and components. They are only generically and functionally described while failed to convey a sufficiently definite meaning as a name for a structure (see WSOU v. Google, 2022). Provided the terms will receive even broader usages and meanings in the art, such that no definite structure is defined. As such, the claims are also considered recite no particular structure to perform the claimed functions as single means claims (see PTAB 2025-000596, US patent application 17/000,982).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner Cheng-Yuan Tseng whose telephone number is (571)272-9772, and fax number is (571)273-9772. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 09:00 to 17:30 Eastern Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alicia Harrington can be reached on (571)272-2330. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866)217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800)786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)272-1000.
/CHENG YUAN TSENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615