DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-22 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error at line 4 – “according to according to.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 11 and 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 11 and 22: The term “super computer” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. This term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination, claims 11 and 22 are interpreted such that the computing system “is a wherein the chips are provided in at least two computers.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
6. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
8. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
9. Claims 1-9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by the non-patent literature document titled CMP Network-on-Chip Overlaid With Multi-Band RF-Interconnect (hereinafter “Chang”) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chang, in view of the non-patent literature document titled Memory-Aware Circuit Overlay NoCs for Latency Optimized GPGPU Architectures (hereinafter “Venkata”)1.
Regarding claim 1: Chang teaches a computing system, comprising: a plurality of routers, configured to transport data to nodes; a plurality of transport stations, configured to transport the data to the nodes through the routers; a plurality of first paths, provided between adjacent ones of the routers; a plurality of second paths, provided between adjacent ones of the transport stations (see, e.g., pp. 196-198, figures 3a, 3b; note access points and/or sources transmit via routers to destination(s); note also, e.g., first paths over RC wires and second paths over RF transmission lines);
wherein the computing system operates in a first mode, which transmits the data from a first target device to a second target device via the first paths and the second paths during a first time interval; wherein the first target device is one of the routers or one of the nodes, and the second target device is one of the routers or one of the nodes (see, e.g., 4.2-4.4; packets are routed over multiple paths, note fabric architecture).
Chang does not explicitly state the terms “first mode” and “first time interval.” To the extent these features are not inherent to Change (for instance, both sets of paths are implemented in varying ratios, including “modes” where both are used, as well as modes when either one is used solely, note 5.3.2, some packets use the RF; all occurring over time periods), these features are nevertheless taught by Venkata (see, e.g., 4.1 and 4.2; note particular mode implementation, such as bypass mode, and the delineation over time windows; note also overlapping teachings with respect to NoC architecture and routing over multiple paths). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Venkata, such as the router and signaling functionalities, within the system of Chang, in order to reduce latency and/or energy consumption.
The rationale set forth above regarding the system of claim 1 is applicable to the system of claim 12.
Regarding claims 2 and 13: Chang alternatively modified by Venkata further teaches [wherein] the computing system further operates in a second mode, which transmits the data from the first target device to the second target device via the first paths without the second paths during a second time interval; and the first time interval is larger than the second time interval (see, e.g., Chang 4.1, 4.2, 5.3.2, some packets use either the RF or XY-YX, each time period individually smaller than when both are used; note also Venkata 4.1 and 4.2). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 2.
The rationale set forth above regarding the system of claim 2 is applicable to the system of claim 13.
Regarding claims 3 and 14: Chang alternatively modified by Venkata further teaches wherein the computing system further selectively operates in a third mode, which transmits the data from the first target device to the second target device via the second paths without the first paths (see, e.g., Chang 4.1, 4.2, 5.3.2, some packets use either the RF or XY-YX; note also Venkata 4.1 and 4.2). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 3.
The rationale set forth above regarding the system of claim 3 is applicable to the system of claim 14.
Regarding claims 4 and 15: Chang alternatively modified by Venkata further teaches wherein bandwidths of the second paths are larger than bandwidths of the first paths (see, e.g., Chang 4.3, 4.4 note bandwidth due to, e.g., deadlock; note also Venkata 4.1 and 4.2). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 4.
The rationale set forth above regarding the system of claim 3 is applicable to the system of claim 15.
Regarding claims 5 and 16: Chang alternatively modified by Venkata further teaches wherein the routers are classified into a plurality of system groups according to locations of the routers or the nodes, wherein the computing system operates in the first mode or in the second mode according to the system group which the first target device and the second target device are located in (see, e.g., Chang 4.1, 4.2, 5.3.2, some packets use either the RF or XY-YX; note also Venkata figure 1, 4.1 and 4.2). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 5.
The rationale set forth above regarding the system of claim 5 is applicable to the system of claim 16.
Regarding claims 6 and 17: Chang alternatively modified by Venkata further teaches at least one crossbar switch, provided between the transport stations and the routers, configured to transport the data from the routers to the transport stations; and at least one buffer, provided between the transport stations and the routers, configured to buffer the data from the routers to the transport stations (see, e.g., Chang 4.3; and/or Venkata figure 4, 3.2, 4.1; note buffer and crossbar functionality). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 6.
The rationale set forth above regarding the system of claim 6 is applicable to the system of claim 17.
Regarding claims 7 and 18: Chang alternatively modified by Venkata further teaches at least one arbiter, provided between the transport stations and the routers, configured to allocate the data from the transport stations to the routers (see, e.g., Chang 4.4; and/or Venkata section 1-2; note arbiter functionality). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 7.
The rationale set forth above regarding the system of claim 7 is applicable to the system of claim 18.
Regarding claims 8 and 19: Chang alternatively modified by Venkata further teaches wherein the computing system transmits the data from one of the nodes to another one of the nodes via at least one physical channel, and transmits the data from one of the router to another one of the router via at least one virtual channel (see, e.g., Chang figure 3, sections 3, 4.3, 5.2, 6; and/or Venkata section 2, 3.1, 5.4; note physical and virtual channel implementation). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 8.
The rationale set forth above regarding the system of claim 8 is applicable to the system of claim 19.
Regarding claims 9 and 20: Chang alternatively modified by Venkata further teaches wherein the computing system is an NoC (Network on Chip) system, wherein the routers, the transport stations, the first paths and the second paths are provided in a single chip (see, e.g., Chang abstract, sections 1, 4; and/or Venkata abstract, sections 1, 4.2). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 9.
The rationale set forth above regarding the system of claim 9 is applicable to the system of claim 20.
10. Claims 10, 11, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang, alternatively in view of Venkata, and in further view of either U.S. Publication No. 2023/0187407 A1 (hereinafter “Molnar”) or U.S. Publication No. 2009/0070549 A1 (hereinafter “Solomon”).
Regarding claims 10 and 21: Chang alternatively modified by Venkata wherein the transport stations are provided in different chips. However, this feature is taught by Molnar (see, e.g., [0100], [0128], [0158]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Molnar, such as the processing architectures, within the system of Chang alternatively modified by Venkata, in order to improve processing efficiency.
Alternatively, the said feature is taught by Solomon (see, e.g., [0048], [0103], [0200]). Similarly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Solomon, such as the processing architectures, within the system of Chang alternatively modified by Venkata, in order to improve processing efficiency.
The rationale set forth above regarding the system of claim 10 is applicable to the system of claim 21.
Regarding claims 11 and 22: Chang alternatively modified by Venkata, and further Molnar or Solomon, further teaches wherein the computing system is a super computer system and the chips are provided in at least two computers (see, e.g., Molnar [0050], [0056], [0096], [0128], [0230]; note alternatively Solomon [0005], [0023], [0200]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 10 is applicable to claim 11.
The rationale set forth above regarding the system of claim 11 is applicable to the system of claim 22.
Relevant Art
11. The following prior art not relied upon in this Office action is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: See form PTO-892.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS SLOMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-3795. 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.
/NICHOLAS SLOMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
1 Chang and Venkata are cited in Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement submitted December 23, 2024 (Non-Patent Literature Documents, cite nos. 1 and 3).