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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, and 12-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
As per claim 1, see rejection on claim 20.
As per claim 2, see rejection on claim 1. “interface with both the first integrated circuit and the second integrated circuit via ethernet links” is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See US 2022/0272052. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 3, see rejection on claim 1. “the condition . . . first variable is equal to a compare value contained in the first request packet” is a mathematical concept type of abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
As per claim 4, see rejection on claim 1. “the condition . . . first variable is not equal to a compare value contained in the first request packet” is a mathematical concept type of abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
As per claim 5, see rejection on claim 1. “the condition . . . first variable is updated to a new value” is a mathematical concept type of abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
As per claim 6, see rejection on claim 1. “compare . . . determining . . . “. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
“wherein the second request packet comprises a request for an atomic compare and swap operation . . . ” is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high le-9vel of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See US 2024/0256163. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 8, see rejection on claim 1. “access the buffer of the shared memory by writing data to the buffer of the shared memory . . . access the buffer of the shared memory by reading the data from the buffer of the shared memory” amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation is also a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
As per claim 9, see rejection on claim 1. “write data to the buffer of the shared memory . . . write data to a different part of the buffer of the shared memory . . . issue a request to cause updating of the first variable” is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high le-9vel of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See US 2015/0212939 . The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 10, see rejection on claim 9. “. . . . receive a respective notification . . . in response to the respective notification, issue one or more read requests to read data from a respective part of the buffer of the shared memory” amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation is also a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
As discussed above, “. . . . receive a respective notification . . . in response to the respective notification, issue one or more read requests to read data from a respective part of the buffer of the shared memory” amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation is also a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g). “issue a respective request of a first type to the circuitry . . . wherein the first request packet comprises a first request of the first type, wherein the circuitry is configured to generate the respective notification in response to the respective request of the first type” is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See US 2015/0212939 . The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 12, see rejection on claim 1. “issue the first request packet . . . issue the second one or more memory access request packets . . . execute a second set of
perform computations on a second set of data . . . issue the second request packet; . . . . issue the first one or more memory access request packets . . . the first set of instructions and the second set of instructions form part of an application” is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See US 2015/0212939 . The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 13, see rejection on claim 12. “wherein the second processing unit is configured to perform its computations on part of the second set of data to generate part of the first set of data, wherein the first one or more memory access request packets comprise one or more write requests comprising the part of the first set of data, wherein the first one or more memory access request packets comprise one or more read request packets, wherein the memory controller is configured to, in response to the one or more read request packets, return the part of the first set of data in one or more read completions” is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See US 2015/0212939 . The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 14, see rejection on claim 1. “. . . manage the first variable” is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See US 2015/0278089. The claim is ineligible.
.
As per claim 15, see rejection on claim 1. “. . . the first variable is a non-binary variable represented by more than two bits” is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See US 2015/0278089. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 16, see rejection on claim 1. “the first processing unit is a first tile belonging to a first multi-tile processing unit formed on the first integrated circuit, and wherein the second processing unit is a second tile belonging to a second multi-tile processing unit formed on the second integrated circuit” is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See US 2023/0342121. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 17, see rejection on claim 1. “ . . . issue the second one or more memory access request packets to access the buffer of the shared memory . . . “ amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation is also a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
As discussed above, “ . . . issue the second one or more memory access request packets to access the buffer of the shared memory . . . “ amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation is also a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g). “wherein the notification comprises a value of the pointer” is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See US 11941436 . The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 18, see rejection on claim 1. “ . . . variables for controlling access to different buffers of the shared memory, the plurality of variables comprising the first variable . . . for each variable of the plurality of variables, implement atomic operations with respect to a respective variable” is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See US 2015/0212939 . The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 19, see rejection on claim 1. “the second integrated circuit is connected to the third integrated circuit by one or more intermediate integrated circuits” is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See US 2022/0114440. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 20, the claim recites a series of steps, therefore is a process.
The claim recites the limitation of “in response to determining that the first variable does not meet the condition, the circuitry waiting until the first variable changes”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
The limitation of “issuing from the first processing unit, a first request packet to circuitry on a third integrated circuit, the first request packet specifying a condition in relation to a first variable held in storage on the third integrated circuit . . . the second processing unit issuing a first memory access request packet to a memory controller on the third integrated circuit to access the buffer of the shared memory . . . subsequently, issuing from the second processing unit, a second request packet to the circuitry to cause updating of the first variable such that the condition is met . . . the circuitry returning a notification to the first processing unit . . . the first processing unit issuing a second memory access request packet to the memory controller to access the buffer of the shared memory”, amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation is also a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
As discussed above, “issuing . . . issuing a first memory access request packet to a memory controller on the third integrated circuit to access the buffer of the shared memory . . . issuing from the second processing unit . . . returning a notification to the first processing unit . . . issuing a second memory access request packet to the memory controller to access the buffer of the shared memory” amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 21, see rejection on claim 3.
As per claim 22, see rejection on claim 4.
As per claim 23, see rejection on claim 5.
As per claim 24, see rejection on claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 11847507 teaches a method of synchronizing memory access.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLIE SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-5100. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at (571) 272-4215. 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.
/CHARLIE SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198