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 1-5 have been /cancelled.
Claims 6-22 have been examined.
The specification objections in the previous Office Action have been addressed and are withdrawn.
The § 112 rejections in the previous Office Action have been addressed and are withdrawn, except as otherwise indicated below.
Examiner’s Note
This action is the second final action mailed since the Applicant’s previous response to non-final. This action is being mailed to correct typographical errors regarding the claim numbering in the previous final office action.
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 limitations and corresponding structure disclosed in the specification (if any) are:
a preprocessing unit that operates in claims 6, 10-15, and 18-22—no corresponding structure found;
a selection operator configured to operate in claims 6 and 15—no corresponding structure found;
a shift operator configured to operate in claims 6 and 15—no corresponding structure found;
shift units configured to output in claim 8—no corresponding structure found;
a delay part configured to delay in claims 9 and 17—no corresponding structure found; and
a selection part configured to output in claims 9 and 17—no corresponding structure found.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use generic placeholders in place of the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitations are not modified by functional language. Such claim limitations are:
a preprocessing part in claims 6 and 15; and
a main processing part in claims 6 and 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 6-22 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. The specification does not describe any specific structure or algorithm detailing how the functions of the preprocessing unit, selection operator, shift operator, shift units, delay part, and selection part are implemented.
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 6-22 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 pre-AIA the Applicant regards as the invention. The following claim limitations invoke § 112(f): preprocessing unit, selection operator, shift operator, shift units, delay part, and selection part. The specification does not describe structure to perform the functions of these limitations. Accordingly, the claims are indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. The prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious the following subject matter recited in each of the independent claims when considered in combination with the other limitations in those claims: “A parallel processing device, comprising: a preprocessing part comprising preprocessing units; and a main processing part comprising summers, wherein each of the preprocessing units comprises a selection operator and a shift operator, the selection operator is configured to operate when corresponding one of the preprocessing units operates in a summing mode, and configured to perform a function of transmitting first signals to corresponding one of the summers according to bits of corresponding one of second signals respectively, and the shift operator is configured to operate when the corresponding preprocessing unit operates in a multiplication mode, and configured to transmit signals resulting from shifting corresponding one of the first signals to the corresponding summer according to the bits respectively.”
The prior art teaches parallel processing devices having preprocessing and main processing parts. See, e.g., US 20070182746 by Jiao (listed below). The prior art also teaches processing devices having both an addition mode and multiplication mode. See, e.g., US 20060288069 by Simkins (listed below). However, it would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention without impermissible hindsight.
Response to Arguments
On page 8 of the response filed September 2, 2025 (“response”), the Applicant argues, “Applicant has amended the title as suggested by the Examiner in order to be more descriptive. Withdrawal of the objection to the specification is respectfully requested.”
These remarks have been fully considered and, in light of the claim amendments presented in the response, are deemed persuasive. Accordingly, the objection is withdrawn.
On page 9 of the response the Applicant argues, “Applicant respectfully submits that the elements of claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-22 are clearly not invoking of 35 U.S.C. §112(f) as each of the structural elements of the claims is supported throughout the original disclosure as components of a processor, including by at least the non-limiting embodiments set forth as follows.”
Though fully considered, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Whether or not the elements are supported in the specification is irrelevant to the determination of whether the elements invoke § 112(f). Invocation of 112(f) depends on the three-factor determination discussed at MPEP § 2181, and reproduced above. Here, the elements satisfy the three criteria of: A) using generic placeholders; that are B) modified by functional language; and that C) are not modified (in the claim) by sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform the claimed functions. Therefore, the elements invoke § 112(f). Accordingly, the Applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive.
On pages 9-10 of the response the Applicant argues that the specification supports the elements that are rejected under § 112(a) and § 112(b). In support of this position, the Applicant argues, “(1) a shift operator configured to transmit in claim 6 is shown as a reference number 120_1, 120_2, ... or 120_N in Fig. 1 and is explained in detail at paragraphs [0056]-[0060] in the patent specification. In addition, it is also shown as a reference number 120_i in Fig. 2 and is explained in detail at paragraph [0091] in the patent specification. (2) a shift operator configured to transmit in claim 15 is shown as a reference number 120_(p-1), 120_p, ... or 120_(p+1) in Fig. 3 and is explained in detail at paragraphs [0101]-[0105] in the patent specification. (3) a delay part configured to delay in claim 9 is shown as a reference number 300 in Fig. 1 and is explained in detail at paragraph [0067] in the patent specification. (4) a delay part configured to delay in claim 17 is shown as a reference number 300A in Fig. 3 and is explained in detail at paragraph [0113] in the patent specification. (5) a selection part configured to output in claim 9 is shown as a reference number 400 in Fig. 1 and is explained in detail at paragraph [0068] in the patent specification. (6) a selection part configured to output in claim 17 is shown as a reference number 400A in Fig. 3 and is explained in detail at paragraph [0114] in the patent specification. (7) a preprocessing unit that operates in claims 6, 10-14 is shown as a reference number 150_1, 150_2, ... or 150_N in Fig. 1 and is explained in detail at paragraphs [0050]-[0061] in the patent specification. In addition, it is also shown as Fig. 2 and is explained in detail at paragraphs [0089]-[0093] in the patent specification. (8) a preprocessing unit that operates in claims 15, 18-22 is shown as a reference number 150_(p-1), 150_p, ... or 150_(p+1) in Fig. 3 and is explained in detail at paragraphs [0095]-[0106] in the patent specification. (9) a shift unit configured to output in claim 8 is shown as a reference number SH1, SH2, ... or SHN in Fig. 2 and is explained in detail at paragraph [0091] in the patent specification.”
Though fully considered, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order to comply with 35 USC 112, the specification must disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed function.” See MPEP 2181(III-IV).
Considering the example of the shift operator configured to transmit, the Applicant argues that the specification discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts to perform the transmitting at Figure 1 and paragraphs 56-60 and 91. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While the cited portions of the specification disclose the shift operator and that the shift operator performs the transmitting, the specification does not disclose any structure, material, or acts that perform the transmitting. The specification does not provide any limitations to what the claimed shift operator is, except that it is implemented in a processor. It is impossible to determine if the shift operator is hardware, software, or a combination of the two. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and unsupported, within the meaning of § 112(b). Similar arguments are true with regard to the remaining limitations, and are not reproduced to avoid redundancy. Accordingly, the Applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive.
On page 10 of the response the Applicant argues, “Sometimes Verilog languages are used for letting people skilled in the art understand the embodiment of the invention more easily. Verilog language, standardized as IEEE 1364, is a hardware description language (HDL) used to model electronic systems, and is well known to the people skilled in the art (digital circuit engineers). Therefore, people skilled in the art can make and use the invention based on the specification, the drawings and the Verilog languages. Accordingly, each of the structural elements of the claims are structural elements of a processor.
Though fully considered, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. A Verilog description of the claimed elements does not satisfy the requirements of § 112(a) and § 112(b) regarding limitations that invoke § 112(f). Verilog is code, not structure. The requirements can be satisfied by a description of an algorithm for performing the claimed function. However, the specification does not disclose algorithms for performing the claimed functions. Consider the example discussed above, i.e., the shift operator configured to operate. The cited portions of the specification state that the shift operator “operates a function of transmitting signals....operation of the shift operator…may be expressed in Verilog language as follows, for example.” There follows code that purports to explain the operation of the shift operator. The code, which is not explained, appears to be the operation of shift logic. This does not represent any particular algorithm for performing the function of transmitting. Accordingly, the Applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN DOMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5677. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 8:30am-6pm Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jyoti Mehta can be reached on 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.
/SHAWN DOMAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183