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 .
This action is in response to the application filed on 08 March 2024.
Claims 1-21 are under examination.
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 limitation(s) is/are: “receiving unit”, “determination unit” and “transmission unit” in claims 15, 20 and 21. The specification discloses receiving unit, determination unit and transmission unit include a circuitry hardware structures, Figure 6.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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(a) 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
Claims 1, 15, 20 and 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US Publication 2012/0170488) in view of Sturek et al. (US Publication 2021/0051126).
With respect to claims 1, 15, 20 and 21, Wang teaches A processing unit, comprising: a processor core; (processing core, Figure 4) and a node of an NoC, (As the number of processing nodes increases, an on-chip network (Le., a 2D mesh network) is implemented to facilitate communications and data transfer between the various processing nodes, Paragraph 2) comprising:
a receiving unit comprises circuitry that is configured to receive a data processing instruction of target service data, wherein the data processing instruction carries information about a receiving node and a processing node set of the NoC, (When Pi receives a multicast message, it extracts the message's destination set D from the message's packet header, and then generates four new destination subsets D1, D2, D3 and D4 that correspond to destination nodes in each region, paragraph 19) the receiving node being configured to receive the target service data and transmit to the processing node set, and the processing node set being configured to process the target service data; (successfully transfers the multicast message D to all the appropriate destination nodes, the performance does not take advantage of the node architecture. That is, once destination nodes are placed into a destination set, the routing of the multicast message is limited to paths entirely through a single region. Thus, the number of non-destination nodes in which the multicast message must go through (Le., the number of node transfers--"hops" as referred to throughout the remainder of this disclosure and denoted by arrows between nodes in FIG. 2) to reach all destination nodes may be greater even though some destination nodes are adjacent to each other, but in different initial regions., Paragraph 28)
a determination unit comprises circuitry that is configured to determine a relay processing node in the processing node set based on the receiving node, the relay processing node being configured to receive the target service data transmitted from the target service data; (Generate D1 by selecting out destination nodes within Region 1 from D, and if D1 is not null (e.g., there exists at least one destination node in the set D within Region 1), then send message to J1 with new destination set D1 information, Paragraph 32. for each adjacent node pair, a comparison of the number of hops is made for each node in the identified pair. This may be done by calculating the x-y distance from source node Pi for each adjacent destination node in the pair, Paragraph 42) and
a transmission unit comprises circuitry that is configured to transmit the target service data from the receiving node to the relay processing node, and to transmit the target service data from the relay processing node to another processing node in the processing node set. (For all other data, the process may repeat such that new regions 1-4 are defined with four new adjacent nodes and four new subsets D1, D2, D3 and D4 of the multicast message D from the perspective of a new source node. This process repeats until all data has reached its destination node, Paragraph 24)
Wang doesn’t explicitly teach a relay processing node is in the processing node set.
Sturek teaches a relay processing node is in the processing node set. (this node is a member of the multicast destination group ff03::fd (which is irrelevant for forwarding determinations), and it has three distant downstream nodes (the 2001::35, 2001::13 and 2001::14 nodes) that are a member of the multicast destination group ff03::fd If the 2001:7 node receives a multicast message having group ff03::fd as its multicast destination, the multicast message needs to be forwarded to only the 2001::25 node, so that the multicast message can ultimately reach the 2001::35, 2001::13 and 2001::14 nodes, Paragraph 60)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement system of Wang with a relay processing node is in the processing node set as taught by Sturek. The motivation for combining Wang and Sturek is to be able to reducing unnecessary power consumption of the UE through the PDCCH monitoring adaptation operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-14, and 16-19 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kumar et al. (US Publication 2015/0043575) discloses Multicast environment is achieved with transmission of a single message from a source component, which gets replicated in the NoC during routing towards the destination components indicated in the message. Example implementations further relate to an efficient way of implementing multicast in any given NoC topology, wherein one or more multicast trees in the given NoC topology are formed and one of these trees are used for routing a multicast message to its intended destination components mentioned therein.
Fadelu et al. (US publication 2025/0173194) discloses preempting a long-running process with a higher priority process in a machine learning system, such as a hardware accelerator. The machine learning hardware accelerator can be a multi-chip system including semiconductor chips that can be application-specific integrated circuits (ASIC) designed to perform machine learning operations. An ASIC is an integrated circuit (IC) that is customized for a particular use.
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAHI AHMED whose telephone number is (571) 270-3652. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00AM-4:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khalid Kassim can be reached on 571-270-3370. 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.
/ABDULLAHI AHMED/Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights