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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/28/2025 and 12/19/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the following reasons:
Figures 1a, 1b, 2, and 3 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(o), suitable descriptive legends are required for properly understanding these drawings.
Figures 1a and 1b are further objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1) as they are not partial views intended to form one complete view- 1a is an example acyclic graph and 1b is a data processing system. Further, 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1) requires that partial views must be identified by the same number followed by a capital letter whereas Figures 1a and 1b use lowercase letters.
Claim 1 recites “the data processing system comprising a command processing unit and a processor” in lines 1-2. The wording of this limitation suggests that the command processing unit is separate from the processor. However, Fig. 1b shows the command processing unit 640 as part of the processor 630. The command processing unit 640 must be shown as separate from the processor 630 or this feature must be canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 3 recites “the command processing unit indicates to the processor to begin processing tasks”. The wording of this limitation suggests that the command processing unit is separate from the processor since it sends indications to the processor. However, Fig. 1b shows the command processing unit 640 as part of the processor 630. The command processing unit 640 must be shown as separate from the processor 630 to send indications to the processor or this feature must be canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 14 recites “indicating to the processing unit to being processing tasks”. However, the drawings do not show the command processing unit receiving indications to being processing tasks. The command processing unit must be shown as receiving indications to begin processing tasks or this feature must be canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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:
“asynchronous commands provided… by the command processing unit” in claims 1 and 12. However, since the specification does not disclose the exact structure of the command processing unit for performing the function of providing asynchronous commands, a 112(a)/(b) rejection is given below.
“the indicated dependencies are provided… by the command processing unit” in claim 1. However, since the specification does not disclose the exact structure of the command processing unit for performing the function of providing the indicated dependencies, a 112(a)/(b) rejection appears below.
“providing the indicated dependencies… by the command processing unit” in claim 12. However, since the specification does not disclose the exact structure of the command processing unit for performing the function of providing the indicated dependencies, a 112(a)/(b) rejection appears below.
“the processor is instructed by the command processing unit” in claim 2. However, since the specification does not disclose the exact structure of the command processing unit for performing the function of instructing the processor, a 112(a)/(b) rejection appears below.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 6- insert --the-- before “processing operations” to clarify that this refers to the processing operations introduced in line 4
Similar clarifications should be made for claim 12
Claims 2-11- “A data processing system” should be “The data processing system”
Claim 9- insert --asynchronous command-- before task in line 4 to clarify that this refers to the asynchronous command task
Similar clarifications should be made for claim 20
Claim 10 line 2- insert --the-- before multiple to clarify that this refers to the multiply execution units of claim 1
Claim 10 line 2- insert --the-- before multiple to clarify that this refers to the multiply execution units of claim 1
Claims 13-20- “A method of data processing” should be “The method of data processing”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites “asynchronous commands provided… by the command processing unit”, which invokes 112(f), thus the specification is required to disclose the specific structure of the command processing unit for performing this function. However, since the specification does not disclose the specific structure, this claim is rejected under 112(a).
Claim 1 recites “the indicated dependencies are provided… by the command processing unit”, which invokes 112(f), thus the specification is required to disclose the specific structure of the command processing unit for performing this function. However, since the specification does not disclose the specific structure, this claim is rejected under 112(a).
Claim 2 recites “the processor is instructed by the command processing unit”, which invokes 112(f), thus the specification is required to disclose the specific structure of the command processing unit for performing this function. However, since the specification does not disclose the specific structure, this claim is rejected under 112(a).
Claim 12 recites “asynchronous commands provided… by the command processing unit”, which invokes 112(f), thus the specification is required to disclose the specific structure of the command processing unit for performing this function. However, since the specification does not disclose the specific structure, this claim is rejected under 112(a).
Claim 12 recites “providing the indicated dependencies… by the command processing unit”, which invokes 112(f), thus the specification is required to disclose the specific structure of the command processing unit for performing this function. However, since the specification does not disclose the specific structure, this claim is rejected under 112(a).
Claims dependent on a rejected base claim are further rejected based on their dependence.
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 1-20 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 1 limitation “asynchronous commands provided… by the command processing unit” and “the indicated dependencies are provided… by the command processing unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the specification discloses a command processing unit 640 on page 22, the specification does not disclose the specific structure of the command processing unit and Figure 1b only shows the command processing unit 640 without showing any specific structure of the command processing unit. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 2 limitation “the processor is instructed by the command processing unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the specification discloses a command processing unit 640 on page 22, the specification does not disclose the specific structure of the command processing unit and Figure 1b only shows the command processing unit 640 without showing any specific structure of the command processing unit. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 12 limitation “asynchronous commands provided… by the command processing unit” and “providing the indicated dependencies… by the command processing unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the specification discloses a command processing unit 640 on page 22, the specification does not disclose the specific structure of the command processing unit and Figure 1b only shows the command processing unit 640 without showing any specific structure of the command processing unit. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1 recites “wherein dependency tracking is compared against an array of counters to indicate dependencies within the array of counters” in lines 8-9. It is unclear how the act of dependency tracking can itself be compared against an array of counters. It is also unclear how there can be dependencies “within” the array of counters- a dependency is understood to be a relationship between instructions where one instruction may have a dependency on another, however a counter is not an instruction and it is unclear how a counter may have a dependency on another counter. Further, use of the transitional phrase “wherein” is understood to further limit a previously introduced feature, however, since the claim does not previously introduce dependency tracking there is insufficient antecedent basis for this term. For purposes of examination this limitation will be interpreted as performing dependency tracking using an array of counters.
Claim 1 recites “dependencies” in lines 12 and 13. It is unclear whether these are the same as the indicated dependencies introduced in line 9 or if they are different. For purposes of examination, they will be interpreted to be the same.
Claim 12 recites similar limitations and is rejected for the similar reasons.
Claim 2 recites “indicated dependencies” in line 3. It is unclear whether this refers to the same indicated dependencies introduced in claim 1 or if they are different. For purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as the same.
Claim 13 recites a similar limitation and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 3 recites “processing tasks” in line 2. It is unclear whether this refers to the same processing tasks introduced in claim 1 or if they are different. For purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as the same.
Claim 14 recites a similar limitation and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 4 recites “dependencies” in line 3. It is unclear whether these are the same as the dependencies introduced in claim 1 or if they are different. For purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as the same.
Claim 15 recites a similar limitation and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 5 recites “an array of counters” in line 3. It is unclear whether this is the same as the array of counters introduced in claim 1 or if they are different. For purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as the same.
Claim 16 recites a similar limitation and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 6 recites “a scoreboard” in line 4. It is unclear whether this is one of the scoreboards introduced in claim 5 or if it is different. For purposes of examination, this will be interpreted as being one of the previously introduced scoreboards.
Claim 17 recites a similar limitation and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 8 recites “an asynchronous command” in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether this is one of the asynchronous commands introduced in claim 1 or if it is different. For purposes of examination, it will be interpreted as one of the asynchronous commands of claim 1.
Claim 19 recites a similar limitation and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 8 recites “the asynchronous command” in line 3. It is unclear whether this refers to the asynchronous command introduced in line 2 or one of the asynchronous commands introduced in claim 1. For purposes of examination this will be interpreted as referring to he asynchronous command introduced in line 2.
Claim 19 recites a similar limitation and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 9 recites “the subset of the array of counters” in lines 2-3 and line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation as the claim does not previously introduce a subset of the array of counters. For purposes of examination this will be interpreted as any subset of the array of counters.
Claim 12 recites “tracking dependency through comparison against an array of counters to indicate dependencies within the array of counters” in lines 7-8. It is unclear what is compared against the array of counters and how that comparison tracks dependency. It is also unclear how there can be dependencies “within” the array of counters- a dependency is understood to be a relationship between instructions where one instruction may have a dependency on another, however a counter is not an instruction and it is unclear how a counter may have a dependency on another counter. For purposes of examination this limitation will be interpreted as performing dependency tracking using an array of counters.
Claim 12 recites “the control circuit” in lines 6 and 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation as the claim does not introduce a control circuit. For purposes of examination this will be interpreted as any control circuit.
Claims dependent on a rejected base claim are further rejected based on their dependence.
Prior Art Considerations
While no prior art rejection is given for claims 1-20, these claims are currently rejected under 112(a)/(b) and are not allowable at the current point. Examiner notes that amendments to overcome the 112 rejections may affect the following prior art considerations given.
The known prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, was not found to teach, in combination with other limitations in the claim, tracking dependency through comparison against an array of counters to indicate dependencies within the array of counters and a command processing unit that provides the indicated dependencies to a control circuit in asynchronous commands, as required by claims 1 and 12.
The closest prior art of record was found to be:
Mrozek US 2022/0291955 (cited in 05/28/2025 IDS) which teaches a command processing unit (Fig. 15A command streamer 1502), a processor comprising multiple execution units (Fig. 15A 1510A), and a control circuit that distributes tasks to the multiple execution units (Fig. 15A TSG 1504), and adding flag or indicator bits to thread dispatch instructions that indicate the kernel to be dispatched has a dependency that will need to be resolved (see [0214]). However, Mrozek does not teach performing a comparison against an array of counters to add the flag bits/indicate the dependencies in the instructions/commands provided to the TSG/control circuit by the command streamer/command processing unit.
Sideris US 11,276,137 which teaches a graphics processor tracks dependencies for threads using counters to determine whether there are outstanding dependencies for an instruction and the instruction may indicate the dependency in the form of a wait modifier in the instruction itself, see col 3 line 52- col 4 line 3. However, Sideris does not teach a command streamer that may provide the instruction including the wait modifier to a control circuit.
While the prior art was found to generally teach dependency tracking using counters and providing indications of dependencies in instructions/commands, the known prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, was not found to teach a command processing unit providing indications of dependencies, which were indicated by a comparison against an array of counters to indicate dependencies within the array of counters, in an asynchronous command to a control circuit.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2021/0271958 teaches a task buffer with entries including data dependency information that indicates tasks whose output data is used for performing a pending task and data hazard information that indicates a source of destination of data of a task against a source or destination of data of a prior task, see [0102]
US 2022/0318051 teaches a scheduler that maintains dependency data associated with each queued instruction and inhibits issuing of the instruction until its required source operands are available, see Abstract
US 2022/0171630 teaches ordering dependent tasks after the tasks they depend on, see Abstract
US 2021/0124585 teaches hint data associated with a producer instruction that indicates the number of consumer instructions that require the result of the producer instruction, see Abstract
US 2022/0027194 teaches scoreboards using a count of operations needed to complete an instruction and that counts down each time one of the operations completes and using a scoreboard for each thread, see [0047].
US 2018/0365016 teaches incrementing a counter when a primary instruction is output by the decoder for execution, decrementing the counter when the primary instruction is resolved, and stalling a secondary instructions in a queue when its primary instruction's counter indicates a hazard, see Abstract, where the primary instruction includes a field indicating the number of dependent instructions, see [0069]
US 2007/0260856 teaches an address pointer of a first instruction that indicates a data dependency status of the first instruction and indicating a data dependency status of a second instruction based on the instruction type of the first instruction and the instruction type of the second instruction, see Abstract
US 2024/0248721 teaches a command processing unit that allocates a scoreboard to a first task of a first operation and a first task of a second operation to indicate a dependency between the tasks, see [0021]
US 2024/0303113 teaches a pull-based model where a command processor loads tasks into the HW queues after data dependencies have been resolved, see Abstract
US 2024/0152392 teaches a task manager that receives tasks and includes a dependency checker that checks dependencies of the first task descriptor and the second task descriptor, see Abstract, and the dependency checker includes a dependency matrix and a dependency counter update logic, see [0273].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KASIM ALLI whose telephone number is (571)270-1476. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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, 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.
/KASIM ALLI/Examiner, Art Unit 2183 /JYOTI MEHTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2183
Prosecution Insights