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 . This Office Action is in response to the submission filed 2024-02-19 (herein referred to as the Reply) where claim(s) 1-31 are pending for consideration.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over various claim(s) of a reference patent/application.
Claim(s) 1, 11, 12
The claim(s) is/are unpatentable over the identified claim(s) of the reference patent/application. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim(s) is/are a broader version of identified claim(s) of the reference patent/application. Hence, the claims are not patentably because the instant claim(s) is/are anticipated by the identified claim(s) of the reference patent/application.
Reference patent/application:
US Application No. 18/581,283 (US PUB. US20250265221)
Instant Claim
Claim of Reference patent/application
01
13
11
14
12
15
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim(s) is/are rejected on the ground of statutory double patenting.
Claim(s) 6, 7
The claims are identical and therefore are directed to the same invention.
35 USC §112(f) - 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.
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.
The identified claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim(s) 25
a virtual channel arbitration unit that determines which one of
generic holder: a virtual channel arbitration unit
functional language: that determines which one of the virtual channels is granted access of the shared data and acknowledge portions of the input and output signals
35 USC §112(b) – Claim Rejections
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.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for not particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter of the invention.
Claim(s) 17
The claim(s) recite variants of:
wherein the packet includes a horizontal sign bit for a difference between the horizontal destination coordinate and the horizontal coordinate associated with a source network node that received the first packet at a local input port, a vertical sign bit for a difference between the vertical destination coordinate and the vertical coordinate associated with the source network node, and
routes the first packet based on the horizontal sign bit and the vertical sign bit.
The claim is unclear due to the last clause which requires “...and routes the first packet based on the horizontal signa bit and vertical sign bit.” The subject of the paragraph is “the packet” (see first line “wherein the packet includes..”) so it appears the packet perform the routing such that “the packet…routes the first packet based on the horizontal signa bit and vertical sign bit.” It is unclear as to how a packet performs a routing of another packet (“the packet routes the first packet). Contrast this with claim 16 which recites “the network node…routes the first packet” which makes sense.
35 USC §102 - Claim Rejections
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)(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.
(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.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over METCALF_187 (US8327187)
Claim(s) 1
METCALF_187 teaches
a two-dimensional array of network nodes fabricated in a die; <FIGs. 1-3; col. 3:ln 64 to col. 4: ln 16-67> Tiles are arranged in grid array on a single chip.
horizontal conductive paths directly coupling each horizontally aligned adjacent pair of the network nodes in the array for transmitting packets from an east output port to a west input port and from a west output port to an east input port of the network nodes in the horizontally aligned adjacent pair; vertical conductive paths directly coupling each vertically aligned adjacent pair of the network nodes in the array for transmitting the packets from a south output port to a north input port and from a north output port to a south input port of the network nodes in the vertically aligned adjacent pair; and at least one of first diagonal conductive paths or second diagonal conductive paths, wherein the first diagonal conductive paths directly couple at least one first diagonally aligned pair of the network nodes in the array for transmitting the packets from a southeast output port to a northwest input port and from a northwest output port to a southeast input port of the network nodes in the first diagonally aligned adjacent pair and the second diagonal conductive paths directly couple at least one second diagonally aligned pair of the network nodes in the array for transmitting the packets from a southwest output port to a northeast input port and from a northeast output port to a southwest input port of the network nodes in the second diagonally aligned adjacent pair. FIG 3A discloses that each tile includes switching circuitry that can have a bi-direction communication path, including I/O ports, to an adjacent tile in all of the following directions: west, north, east, south, north west, north east, south east, south west <FIGs. 1, 3A, 3B; col. 7: ln 47 to col. 8 ln13 >
Claim(s) 2
METCALF_187 teaches
local conductive paths directly coupling each one of the network nodes in the array to a corresponding processing core for transmitting packets to the processing core through a local output port and from the processing core through a local input port. Switch circuitry for each tile includes internal paths to/from the core via internal I/O ports <FIGs. 1, 3A, 3B; col. 7: ln 47 to col. 8 ln13 >
Claim(s) 3
METCALF_187 teaches
wherein at least one of the first diagonal conductive paths or the second diagonal conductive paths are routed in a straight path. FIGs depict paths between tiles in a straight manner <FIGs. 1, 3A, 3B; col. 7: ln 47 to col. 8 ln13 >
Claim(s) 5
METCALF_187 teaches
wherein at least one of the first diagonal conductive paths or at least one of the second diagonal conductive paths directly couple adjacent diagonally aligned pairs of the network nodes. Dialog I/O connections directly coupled the adjacent diagonally tile <FIGs. 1, 3A, 3B; col. 7: ln 47 to col. 8 ln13 >
Claim(s) 26
METCALF_187 teaches
wherein the die is included in a server or in a data center. Embodiments are applicable to tiles in servers < col. 17, Ln 32-36; col. 20: ln 4-16 >
Claim(s) 27
METCALF_187 teaches
wherein the packets are transmitted within a cloud computing environment. Embodiments are applicable to tiles a cloud or data center environment < col. 17, Ln 32-36; col. 20: ln 4-16 >
35 USC §103 - Claim Rejections
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over METCALF_187 (US8327187) in view of HUANG_428 (US20210072428)
Claim(s) 4
METCALF_187 does not explicitly teach
wherein at least one of the first diagonal conductive paths or the second diagonal conductive paths are routed in a zig-zag path.
However in a similar endeavor, HUANG_428 teaches
wherein at least one of the first diagonal conductive paths or the second diagonal conductive paths are routed in a zig-zag path. Signal paths can have zig-zag signal with diagonal features. <FIG(s). 28, 29, 30, 31; para. 0151-0156; Claim(s) 15>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by METCALF_187 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by HUANG_428. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to equalize the loading along the signal pa <FIG(s). 31,30; para. 0157>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over METCALF_187 (US8327187) in view of GRZELKA_500 (US20150171500)
Claim(s) 23
METCALF_187 does not explicitly teach
wherein the horizontal conductive paths, the vertical conductive paths, the first diagonal conductive paths, and the second diagonal conductive paths are each routed on a separate wiring layer.
However in a similar endeavor, GRZELKA_500 teaches
wherein the horizontal conductive paths, the vertical conductive paths, the first diagonal conductive paths, and the second diagonal conductive paths are each routed on a separate wiring layer. all signal paths are routed on separate layers <para. 0026>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by METCALF_187 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by GRZELKA_500. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to isolated from each other by a ground layer thus preventing interference between the paths. <para. 0026>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over METCALF_187 (US8327187) in view of BHATTACHARJEE_805 (US20170300805)
Claim(s) 28
METCALF_187 does not explicitly teach
wherein the packets are transmitted for training, testing, or inferencing with a neural network employed in a machine, robot, or autonomous vehicle.
However in a similar endeavor, BHATTACHARJEE_805 teaches
wherein the packets are transmitted for training, testing, or inferencing with a neural network employed in a machine, robot, or autonomous vehicle. <FIG(s). 1; para. 0019>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by METCALF_187 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by BHATTACHARJEE_805. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to generate various results associated with one or more entities based on neural network configurations. <para. 0001, Background>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over METCALF_187 (US8327187) in view of LEA_622 (US20210240622)
Claim(s) 29
METCALF_187 does not explicitly teach
wherein the packets are transmitted on a virtual machine comprising a portion of a graphics processing unit.
However in a similar endeavor, LEA_622 teaches
wherein the packets are transmitted on a virtual machine comprising a portion of a graphics processing unit. a virtual machine is created by pooling together GPU processing power on two different SoC <FIG(s). 3; para. 0050-0051>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by METCALF_187 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by LEA_622. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow coherent CPU systems to at least partially “self-heal” by logically isolating a portion of the system including defective (e.g., malfunctioning, failed, or failing) hardware component(s) responsive to detecting and identifying a relative location of the defective component(s). <para. 0015>.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) is/are indicated as having allowable subject matter and is considered allowable.
Claim(s) 8-10, 13-16, 18-22, 24-25, 30-31
In addition to the explicit reasons given herein, allowability is also determined in view of the combination of references required for obviousness, the inter-relationship between other claimed limitations, and the claimed invention as a whole. Accordingly, amendments that do not incorporate the allowable claims into the base/intervening claims in its entirely, are not allowable. This includes amendments that incorporate the allowable claims into the base/intervening claims in part or in a non-narrowing manner (i.e., changing the scope of the subject matter).
Relevant Cited References
HO - KR20220116892 teaches linkers are disposed between routers adjacent to each other in a diagonal direction (FIG. 2).
SIVARAMAKRISHNAN - US12267256 teaches “receiving a packet with the above settings, a switch directs the packet towards its northwest destination port” but does not teach comparing destination coordinates to a node coordinate (claim 13).
US7882307
US20190370086
US20190354811
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE TACDIRAN whose telephone number is 571-272-1717. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH, 10-5PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on 571-270-1215. 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/ANDRE TACDIRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights