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 .
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a data buffer storage a plurality of…instructions” should recite “a data buffer storing a plurality of…instructions”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 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 website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12014214 (hereinafter ‘214). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘214 patent anticipates the claims of the instant application.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11016810 (hereinafter ‘810). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘810 patent anticipates the claims of the instant application.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rakib et al. (US 2010/0281483).
With respect to claim 1, Rakib discloses: A work queue of an accelerator, the work queue comprising: a data buffer storage a plurality of distinct fixed-length instructions ([0047], lines 1-3, “three slot instruction” corresponds to “fixed length instructions”);
an interface for receiving one or more signals from a task scheduler indicating that a task should be executed by one or more components of the accelerator ([0024], add thread to enable list base on token lookup table that identifies the thread); and
a controller that dispatches one or more of the plurality of distinct fixed-length instructions to the one or more components of the accelerator based on the received one or more signals thereby initiating task execution by the one or more components ([0045], [0049] [0052]).
With respect to claim 2, Rakib discloses: wherein the work queue is configured to store variable-length instructions by storing the variable-length instructions in partitions of fixed-length instructions ([0047]).
With respect to claim 3, Rakib discloses: wherein: the accelerator includes a plurality of distinct computing tiles, and each computing tile of the plurality of distinct computing tiles includes a distinct work queue (Fig. 4, cluster memory 308, Fig. 3, see e.g., the use case disclosed in paragraph [0039]).
With respect to claim 4, Rakib discloses: wherein the accelerator comprises a matrix multiply accelerator of a mixed-signal integrated circuit ([0003], [0006], Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 5, Rakib discloses: wherein the received one or more signals included token-induced signals produced by the task scheduler based on satisfying a token count condition or a token combination condition ([0063]).
With respect to claim 6, Rakib discloses: wherein the task scheduler: (a) tracks a state of one or more data transfer circuits, and (b) schedules an execution of a distinct data transfer task with the work queue based on identifying a plurality of distinct tokens emitted within the accelerator ([0024], when a thread finished executing/completes corresponds to “tracks…state…circuits”).
With respect to claim 7, Rakib discloses: the accelerator comprises an accelerator tile that is arranged among a plurality of accelerator tiles on a mixed-signal integrated circuit, and each of the plurality of accelerator tiles includes a distinct task scheduler (Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 8, Rakib discloses: wherein: each of the plurality of distinct fixed-length instructions stored by the work queue is associated with one or more of a plurality of distinct data transfer tasks, the work queue transmits one of the plurality of distinct fixed-length instructions associated with the one distinct data transfer task of the plurality of distinct data transfer tasks to one of the one or more data transfer circuits based on the one or more received signals comprising an identification of the one distinct data transfer task ([0024]).
With respect to claims 9-16, they recite similar limitations as claims 1-8, respectively, and are therefore rejected under the same citations and rationale.
With respect to claims 17-19, they recite similar limitations as claims 1, 5, and 6, respectively, and are therefore rejected under the same citations and rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WISSAM RASHID whose telephone number is (571)270-3758. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, Aimee Li can be reached at (571)272-4169. 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.
/WISSAM RASHID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195