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, 15, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 20, 2026 has been entered.
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.
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 pre-AIA the Applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “an identity of the first reconfigurable processors, wherein the identity comprises circuit characteristics associated with the first architecture and circuit characteristics of the allocated reconfigurable processors.” This limitation is self-contradictory, rendering the scope of the claims indefinite. That is, the claim requires that the identify of first reconfigurable processors is based not only on characteristics of the first reconfigurable processors but also on characteristics of allocated reconfigurable processors, which may include both first and second reconfigurable processors. The meaning of this cannot be definitely understood. For purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as, “an identity of the first reconfigurable processors, wherein the identity comprises circuit characteristics associated with the first architecture and circuit characteristics of the allocated reconfigurable processors.” Claims 15 and 20 include similar limitations and are similarly rejected.
Claim 1 recites, “the auto-discovery module circuit.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as, “the auto-discovery circuit.”
Claim 1 recites, “the circuit characteristics of the allocated reconfigurable processors.” There are multiple possible antecedent bases for this limitation in the claim, which renders the scope of the claims indefinite. Claim 15 includes similar limitations and is similarly rejected.
Claim 3 recites, “the auto-discovery circuit is further configured to retrieve the circuit characteristics of the first architecture from the host system and to compare the circuit characteristics….” However, claim 1 also recites, “the auto-discovery module circuit is configured to retrieve.” (sic) It is unclear whether the same circuit characteristics are being retrieved and compared once or twice. Accordingly, the scope of the claims is indefinite. For purposes of examination the claim is interpreted as requiring only a single retrieval. Claim 18 includes similar limitations and is similarly rejected.
Claim 3 recites, “the circuit characteristics of the first architecture.” There are multiple possible antecedent bases for this limitation in the claim, which renders the scope of the claims indefinite. That is, claim 1 recites “circuit characteristics associated with the first architecture” and claim 3 recites, “circuit characteristics of the first architecture.” These are understood to be the same. Claim 18 includes similar limitations and is similarly rejected.
Claim 4 recites, “the circuit characteristics.” There are multiple possible antecedent bases for this limitation in the claim, which renders the scope of the claims indefinite. Claim 19 includes similar limitations and is similarly rejected.
Claims 2-14 and 16-19 are rejected as depending from rejected base claims and failing to cure the indefiniteness of those base claims.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by US Publication No. 2020/0257643 by Grohoski et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Grohoski”).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, taking claim 1 as representative, Grohoski discloses:
a host system that is operatively coupled to first reconfigurable processors having a first architecture and to second reconfigurable processors having a second architecture that is different than the first architecture, wherein the host system allocates reconfigurable processors of the first and/or second reconfigurable processors for executing an application, comprising (Grohoski discloses, at Figure 1 and related description, a host coupled to reconfigurable processors, which discloses the host allocating reconfigurable processors. Grohoski also discloses, at Figure 3 and related description, the configurable units include PMUs and PCUs, which discloses first reconfigurable processors having a first architecture and second reconfigurable processors having a second architecture different from the first architecture.):
an auto-discovery circuit that is configured to determine whether the allocated reconfigurable processors include at least one of the first reconfigurable processors based on an identity of the first reconfigurable processors, wherein the identity comprises circuit characteristics associated with the first architecture and circuit characteristics of the allocated reconfigurable processors, and wherein the auto-discovery module circuit is further configured to retrieve the circuit characteristics associated with the first architecture from the host system, retrieve circuit characteristics of the allocated reconfigurable processors, and compare the circuit characteristics associated with the first architecture to the circuit characteristics of the allocated reconfigurable processors to determine…(Grohoski discloses, at Figure 11 and related description, a monitoring service that determines needed resources, e.g., configurable units, and surveys the system to identify utilized resources, which discloses determining which processors are allocated based on their identity. Identifying the utilized resources is understood to encompass circuit characteristics associated with the configurable units. The resource monitor receives a request for specified resources from the host, determines the allocated resources, and compares the two to determine if there are available resources.).
Grohoski does not explicitly that the aforementioned comparing is to determine whether the allocated processors include at least one of the first reconfigurable processors. However, Grohoski discloses, at Figure 3 and related description, multiple types of configurable units, e.g., PCU, PMU. It would have been obvious to modify Grohoski to determine whether one of the processors of a given type was allocated in order to effectively determine the capabilities of the allocated resources.
Regarding claims 2 and 17, taking claim 2 as representative, Grohoski discloses the elements of claim 1, as discussed above. Grohoski also discloses:
the auto-discovery circuit is further configured to retrieve an identity of the first architecture from the host system and to compare the identity of the first architecture with identities of the allocated reconfigurable processors … (Grohoski discloses, at Figure 11 and related description, a monitoring service that determines needed resources, which discloses retrieving an identity of the first architecture, and surveys the system to see if the needed resources are available, which discloses comparing the identity with identities of the allocated resources to determine whether the allocated reconfigurable processors include at least one of the first reconfigurable processors.).
Grohoski does not explicitly that the aforementioned comparing is to determine whether the allocated processors include at least one of the first reconfigurable processors. However, Grohoski discloses, at Figure 3 and related description, multiple types of configurable units, e.g., PCU, PMU. It would have been obvious to modify Grohoski to determine whether one of the processors of a given type was allocated in order to effectively determine the capabilities of the allocated resources.
Regarding claims 3 and 18, taking claim 3 as representative, Grohoski discloses the elements of claim 1, as discussed above. Grohoski also discloses:
the auto-discovery circuit is further configured to retrieve circuit characteristics of the first architecture from the host system and to compare the circuit characteristics of the first architecture with circuit characteristics of the allocated reconfigurable processors … (Grohoski discloses, at Figure 11 and related description, a monitoring service that determines needed resources, e.g., configurable units, and surveys the system to see if the needed resources are available, which discloses comparing circuit characteristics of the first architecture with circuit characteristics of the allocated reconfigurable processors to determine whether the allocated reconfigurable processors include at least one of the first reconfigurable processors.).
Grohoski does not explicitly that the aforementioned retrieving is to determine whether the allocated processors include at least one of the first reconfigurable processors. However, Grohoski discloses, at Figure 3 and related description, multiple types of configurable units, e.g., PCU, PMU. It would have been obvious to modify Grohoski to determine whether one of the processors of a given type was allocated in order to effectively determine the capabilities of the allocated resources.
Regarding claims 4 and 19, taking claim 4 as representative, Grohoski discloses the elements of claim 3, as discussed above. Grohoski also discloses:
the circuit characteristics include at least one of number of pins, number of computational elements, number of memory elements, number of switch elements, number of horizontal routing tracks, or number of vertical routing tracks (Grohoski discloses, at Figure 11 and related description, a monitoring service that determines needed resources, e.g., configurable units, and surveys the system to see if the needed resources are available, which discloses a number of computational elements.).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, taking claim 5 as representative, Grohoski discloses the elements of claim 1, as discussed above. Grohoski also discloses:
the auto-discovery circuit is further configured to determine whether the allocated reconfigurable processors include at least one of the second reconfigurable processors (Grohoski discloses, at Figure 11 and related description, a monitoring service that determines needed resources, e.g., configurable units, and surveys the system to see if the needed resources are available, which discloses an auto-discovery circuit configured to determine whether the allocated reconfigurable processors include at least one of the second reconfigurable processors.).
Regarding claim 6, Grohoski discloses the elements of claim 5, as discussed above. Grohoski also discloses:
…configuration files that comprises a first configuration file for executing at least a first portion of the application on the first reconfigurable processors and a second configuration file for executing at least a second portion of the application on the second reconfigurable processors (Grohoski discloses, at Figure 12 and related description, a configuration store, which discloses first and second configuration files.).
Grohoski does not explicitly disclose that the aforementioned configuration store is an archive included on the host system.
However, Grohoski discloses, e.g., at Figure 16 and related description, the host sending configuration files, which discloses an archive. It would have been obvious to include the configuration files in an archive on the host because doing would reduce the storage requirements of the configurable units.
Regarding claim 7, Grohoski discloses the elements of claim 6, as discussed above. Grohoski also discloses:
a runtime processor that is operatively coupled to the first and second reconfigurable processors and that starts execution of the application on the allocated reconfigurable processors (Grohoski disclose, at Figure 10 and related description, a runtime application, which discloses a processor that starts execution.).
Regarding claim 8, Grohoski discloses the elements of claim 7, as discussed above. Grohoski also discloses:
the runtime processor, in response to the auto- discovery circuit determining that the allocated reconfigurable processors include at least one of the first reconfigurable processors, retrieves the first configuration file from the archive of configuration files, and loads the first configuration file to the first reconfigurable processors in the allocated reconfigurable processors prior to starting the execution of the application (Grohoski discloses, at Figure 10 and related description, the runtime execution includes loading the needed configuration then executing the application, which discloses retrieving and loading the first configuration file then starting execution of the application.).
Regarding claim 9, Grohoski discloses the elements of claim 7, as discussed above. Grohoski also discloses:
the runtime processor, in response to the auto- discovery circuit determining that the allocated reconfigurable processors include at least one of the second reconfigurable processors, retrieves the second configuration file from the archive of configuration files, and loads the second configuration file to the second reconfigurable processors in the allocated reconfigurable processors prior to starting the execution of the application (Grohoski discloses, at Figure 10 and related description, the runtime execution includes loading the needed configuration then executing the application, which discloses retrieving and loading the second configuration file then starting execution of the application.).
Regarding claim 10, Grohoski discloses the elements of claim 7, as discussed above. Grohoski also discloses:
a first runtime processor that is operatively coupled to the first reconfigurable processors; and …that is operatively coupled to the second reconfigurable processors (Grohoski disclose, at Figure 10 and related description, the runtime execution includes loading the needed configuration then executing the application, which discloses being coupled to the first and second reconfigurable processors.).
Grohoski does not explicitly disclose a second runtime processor. However, it would have been obvious to modify Grohoski to include multiple runtime processors to improve performance by allowing increased parallel execution.
Regarding claim 11, Grohoski discloses the elements of claim 5, as discussed above. Grohoski also discloses:
a single interface for receiving the application and for interacting with a user (Grohoski discloses, at Figure 1 and related description, a single external I/O interface, which discloses a single interface for receiving the application and interacting with a user.).
Regarding claim 12, Grohoski discloses the elements of claim 5, as discussed above. Grohoski also discloses:
a compiler that retrieves first compilation constraints in response to the auto-discovery circuit determining that the allocated reconfigurable processors include at least one of the first reconfigurable processors and retrieves second compilation constraints in response to the auto- discovery circuit determining that the allocated reconfigurable processors include at least one of the second reconfigurable processors (Grohoski discloses, at ¶ [0045], compiling a configuration file, which discloses doing so for both first and second reconfigurable processors. It is implicit that the compilation involves retrieving corresponding compilation constraints.).
Regarding claim 13, Grohoski discloses the elements of claim 12, as discussed above. Grohoski also discloses:
the compiler generates for the application a first configuration file based on the first compilation constraints and a second configuration file based on the second compilation constraints (Grohoski discloses, at ¶ [0045], compiling a configuration file, which discloses doing so for both first and second reconfigurable processors.).
Regarding claim 14, Grohoski discloses the elements of claim 13, as discussed above. Grohoski also discloses:
a checker that checks enforcement of the first and second compilation constraints in the first and second configuration files (Grohoski discloses, at ¶ [0129], inserting checkpoints, which discloses a checker that checks enforcement of the first and second compilation constraints.).
Regarding claim 20, Grohoski discloses:
a computer-implemented method for executing an application on first reconfigurable processors including coarse-grained reconfigurable arrays of first reconfigurable units and/or second reconfigurable processors including coarse-grained reconfigurable arrays of second reconfigurable units that are different than the first reconfigurable units, comprising (Grohoski discloses, at Figure 2 and related description, a coarse grain reconfigurable architecture of first and second configurable units. Grohoski also discloses, at Figure 3 and related description, the configurable units include PMUs and PCUs, which discloses first reconfigurable processors having a first architecture and second reconfigurable processors having a second architecture different from the first architecture.):
allocating reconfigurable processors of the first and/or second reconfigurable processors for executing the application (Grohoski discloses, at Figure 1 and related description, allocating the reconfigurable processors.); and
determining whether the allocated reconfigurable processors include at least one of the first reconfigurable processors based on an identity of the first reconfigurable processors wherein the identity comprises circuit characteristics associated with the first architecture and circuit characteristics of the allocated reconfigurable processors, … retrieving the circuit characteristics associated with the first architecture from the host system, retrieving circuit characteristics of the allocated reconfigurable processors, and comparing the circuit characteristics associated with the first architecture to the circuit characteristics of the allocated (Grohoski discloses, at Figure 11 and related description, a monitoring service that determines needed resources, e.g., configurable units, and surveys the system to identify utilized resources, which discloses determining which processors are allocated based on their identity. Identifying the utilized resources is understood to encompass circuit characteristics associated with the configurable units. The resource monitor receives a request for specified resources from the host, determines the allocated resources, and compares the two to determine if there are available resources.); and
first reconfigurable processors, executing a first configuration file on the first reconfigurable processors of the allocated reconfigurable processors (Grohoski also discloses, at Figure 10 and related description, the runtime execution includes loading the needed configuration then executing the application, which discloses executing a first configuration file.), and
determining whether the allocated reconfigurable processors include at least one of the second reconfigurable processors based on an identity of the second reconfigurable processors, wherein the identity comprises circuit characteristics associated with the second architecture and circuit characteristics of the allocated reconfigurable processors, and … retrieving the circuit characteristics associated with the second architecture from the host system, retrieving circuit characteristics of the allocated reconfigurable processors, and comparing the circuit characteristics associated with the second architecture to the circuit characteristics of the allocated reconfigurable processors. (Grohoski discloses, at Figure 11 and related description, a monitoring service that determines needed resources, e.g., configurable units, and surveys the system to identify utilized resources, which discloses determining which processors are allocated based on their identity. Identifying the utilized resources is understood to encompass circuit characteristics associated with the configurable units. The resource monitor receives a request for specified resources from the host, determines the allocated resources, and compares the two to determine if there are available resources.).
Grohoski does not explicitly that the aforementioned comparing is to determine whether the allocated processors include at least one of the first and second reconfigurable processors. However, Grohoski discloses, at Figure 3 and related description, multiple types of configurable units, e.g., PCU, PMU. It would have been obvious to modify Grohoski to determine whether one of the processors of a given type was allocated in order to effectively determine the capabilities of the allocated resources.
Response to Arguments
On page 7 of the response filed February 20, 2026 (“response”), the Applicant argues, “Grohoski's monitoring service may survey whether resources are available, but Grohoski does not teach retrieving architecture-associated circuit characteristics and comparing them against circuit characteristics of allocated processors to determine whether the allocation includes at least one processor of a given architecture. The Office Action's inherency rationale is therefore improper. Inherency requires that the missing limitation be necessarily present, not merely that it could be implemented in some manner. See MPEP § 2112.”
Though fully considered, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Grohoski discloses, e.g., at ¶ [0128], receiving a request for resources. The resources must be described in some way. Grohoski also discloses comparing the requested resources with those currently executed. This is arguably more general than determining if a specific type of processor is allocated. However, it would have been an obvious modification to specifically identify the types of processors, e.g. PCU, PMU, in order to efficiently determine resource utilization and availability. Type of processor is just one of many ways to describe resource utilization and availability. In order to expedite prosecution, the Examiner has updated the rejection to rest on obviousness grounds rather than anticipation.
On page 7 of the response the Applicant argues, “Claims 6-10 recite, inter alia, an archive at the host system including distinct configuration files for different architectures, and runtime-processor functionality for loading an appropriate configuration file for the allocated processors (and, in claim 10, separate runtime processors operatively coupled to the different architectures). Grohoski does not teach these specific host-side archive and multi-runtime-processor structures. The Office Action's rationale that it would have been obvious to add multiple runtime processors "to improve performance" is conclusory and does not provide an articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to modify Grohoski's particular system architecture in the specific manner claimed. See MPEP § 2143.”
Though fully considered, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s characterization of the rationale for concluding obviousness is incomplete. The rationale state that it would be obvious to include multiple processors to improve performance by allowing increased parallelism. Having additional processing capacity is ubiquitously known to enable increased parallel execution, thereby improving performance. Accordingly, the Applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN DOMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5677. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 8:30am-6pm Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jyoti Mehta can be reached on 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.
/SHAWN DOMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183
Prosecution Insights