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 .
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.
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.
Claim 14 is 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification, as originally filed, does not provide support for the limitations of “the one or more TPUs are electronically coupled to the GPU.”
Claim 13 is 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.
The recitation of the claim is confusing because it does not provide any connection with other elements.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 7, 10-14, 20, 23, 24, 26 and 30 of U.S. Patent No. 12,381,763. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 2, 7, 10-14, 20, 23, 24, 26 and 30 of U.S. Patent No. 12,381,763 cover and encompass the limitations of claims 1-20 of the instant application. Moreover, because omission element(s) in the claims would make the claims in the instant application broader, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the claim(s) in the U.S. Patent No. 12,381,763 to as now recited in the instant application since it is just merely an obvious variation of the claims. Furthermore, it is well settled that omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 163 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1969).
Regarding claims 1 and 2 of the instant application, claim 2 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,381,763 covers and encompasses all subject matter claimed.
Regarding claims 3 and 4 of the instant application, claim 24 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,381,763 covers and encompasses all subject matter claimed.
Regarding claim 5 of the instant application, claim 23 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,381,763 covers and encompasses all subject matter claimed.
Regarding claims 6 and 7 of the instant application, claim 20 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,381,763 covers and encompasses all subject matter claimed.
Regarding claims 8-10 of the instant application, claims 10-12 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,381,763 covers and encompasses, respectively, all subject matter claimed.
Regarding claim 11 of the instant application, claim 7 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,381,763 covers and encompasses all subject matter claimed.
Regarding claim 12 of the instant application, claim 12 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,381,763 covers and encompasses all subject matter claimed.
Regarding claim 14 of the instant application, claim 14 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,381,763 covers and encompasses all subject matter claimed.
Regarding claims 15 and 16 of the instant application, claim 26 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,381,763 covers and encompasses all subject matter claimed.
Regarding claim 17 of the instant application, claim 30 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,381,763 covers and encompasses all subject matter claimed.
Regarding claim 18 of the instant application, claim 13 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,381,763 covers and encompasses all subject matter claimed.
Regarding claims 13, 19 and 20 of the instant application, although the claims of the U.S. Patent No. 12,381,763 does not cover and encompass the limitations of “virtual radio access network” (claim 13), “wherein the likely value is based, at least in part, on a log-likelihood ratio value corresponding to probabilities that the bit was transmitted as a 0 or a 1” (claim 19) and “wherein the likely value comprises a log-sum approximation for the bit” (claim 20), however, such limitations are notoriously well-known in the art of digital communications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,381,763 by including the well-known limitations as recited in claims 13, 19 and 20 in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
In light of the foregoing discussion, the broader claims 1-20 of the instant application are rejected as obvious double patenting over the narrower claims 2, 7, 10-14, 20, 23, 24, 26 and 30 of U.S. Patent No. 12,381,763.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1, 2, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vankayala et al (US 2022/0278769).
Regarding independent claim 1, Vankayala teaches a processor comprising: one or more texture processing units (TPUs) to compute a signal value from one or more wireless communication signals to indicate a likely value of a bit of a modulation symbol obtained via the one or more wireless communication signals ([0002], [0005], [0060], [0065], [0068], [0071] and [0117]).
Regarding independent claims 8 and 15, the claims recite similar subject matter as in claim 1. Therefore, similar rationale is applied as for claim 1.
Regarding dependent claim 2, Vankayala further teaches wherein the signal value comprises a log-likelihood ratio value. See [0002], [0003] and [0005].
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 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vankayala et al (US 2022/0278769) in view of Du et al (US 2021/0183005) or Fielding (US 2020/0193650).
Regarding dependent claims 3, 4 and 10, Vankayala teaches all subject matter claimed except to further teach wherein the signal value is based, at least in part, on one more predetermined probability values that correspond to one or more texture coordinates. However, determining the signal value base on predetermined probability values that correspond to one or more texture coordinates is notoriously well-known in the art of digital communications. For example, Du or Fielding, from the same field of endeavor, teaches determining signal value based on texture coordinates. See Du: [0045], [0050] or Fielding: [0077], [0083], [0088], [0091], [0139] and [0151]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Vankayala by employing the teachings as taught by Du or Fielding in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding dependent claims 6, 7, 17, Vankayala as modified by Du or Fielding further teaches generating signal value using a texture lookup operation. See Du: [0045], [0050] or Fielding: [0077], [0083], [0088], [0091], [0139] and [0151].
Regarding dependent claims 9, 16, 18 Vankayala as modified by Du or Fielding further teaches the signal value is based on an interpolation value from one or more texture channels of one or more TPUs. See Du: [0045], [0050] or Fielding: [0077], [0083], [0088], [0091], [0139] and [0151].
Regarding dependent claim 19, Vankayala as modified by Du or Fielding further teaches wherein the likely value is based, at least in part, on a log-likelihood ratio value corresponding to probabilities that the bit was transmitted as a 0 or a 1. See Fielding: [0139].
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vankayala et al (US 2022/0278769) in view of Tachi (US 2014/0347528).
Regarding dependent claims 5 and 16, Vankayala teaches all subject matter claimed except to further teach wherein the signal value is based, at least in part, on one more predetermined probability values that are associated with one or more color channels of a texture. However, the signal value associated with one or more color channels of a texture is notoriously well-known in the art of digital communications. For example, Tachi, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the signal value associated with one or more color channels of a texture. See Tachi: [0018] and [0340]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Vankayala by employing the teachings as taught by Tachi in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vankayala et al (US 2022/0278769) in view of Leach et al (US 2008/0212694) or Stoye (US 2010/0034323).
Regarding dependent claim 11, Vankayala teaches all subject matter claimed except to further teach wherein the likely value is based, at least in part, on real and imaginary components of the modulation symbol. However, the likely value is based, at least in part, on real and imaginary components of the modulation symbol is notoriously well-known in the art of digital communications. For example, Leach or Stoye, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the likely value is based, at least in part, on real and imaginary components. See Leach: [0102] or Stoye: [0095]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Vankayala by employing the teachings as taught by Leach or Stoye in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vankayala et al (US 2022/0278769).
Regarding dependent claim 13, Vankayala teaches all subject matter claimed except to further teach a virtual radio access network. However, virtual radio access network is notoriously well-known in the art of digital communications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Vankayala by employing a virtual radio access network in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vankayala et al (US 2022/0278769) in view of Maiyuran et al (US 2021/0312697).
Regarding dependent claim 14, Vankayala teaches all subject matter claimed and further teach 5G signals ([0070] and [0072]). Vankayala fails to further teaches the system comprises a graphics processing unit (GPU), wherein the one or more TPUs are electronically coupled to the GPU. However, the system comprises a graphics processing unit (GPU), wherein the one or more TPUs are electronically coupled to the GPU is notoriously well-known in the art of digital communications. For example, Maiyuran, from the same field of endeavor, teaches such GPU and TPU. See [0216] and claim 22. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Vankayala by employing the teachings as taught by Maiyuran in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vankayala et al (US 2022/0278769) in view of Hershey et al (US 2013/0197904), Tseng (US 2012/0076247) or Chappaz (US 2011/0019726).
Regarding dependent claim 20, Vankayala teaches all subject matter claimed except to further teach wherein the likely value comprises a log-sum approximation for the bit. However, log-sum approximation for the bit is notoriously well-known in the art of digital communications. For example, Hershey, Tseng or Chappaz, from the same field of endeavor, teaches using log-sum approximation for the bit. See Hershey: [0006], Tseng: [0035] or Chappaz: [0083]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Vankayala by employing the teachings as taught by Hershey, Tseng or Chappaz in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Examiner's note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References Massey (US 7,073,114), Famous et al (US 8,594,217) and Kim et al (US 2022/0278778) are cited because they are pertinent to the method and apparatus for determining likely value using texture processing unit. However, none of the cited references teaches or suggests the further arrangements as recited in the dependent claims 12.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON NGUYEN VO whose telephone number is (571) 272-3018. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 9:00 to 6:30PM.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kenneth N Vanderpuye, can be reached on 571-272-3078. 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.
/DON N VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights