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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the previously submitted response dated March 17, 2026, to be entered. On one hand, the Request for Continued Examination Transmittal dated April 16, 2026, appears to have the “Previously submitted” box checked. On the other hand, the supplemental amendment filed April 17, 2026, does not appear to show markup relative to the response dated March 17, 2026.
Examiner also notes that the response received April 17, 2026, contains further issues of non-compliance. For example, Claim 8 recites, in strikethrough, “first” in line 13; however, this language was newly deleted in the response received December 2, 2025. For example, Claim 10 recites, in strikethrough and double brackets respectively, “plurality of” and “s” in line 11; however, this language was newly deleted in the response received December 2, 2025. For example, paragraph [0032], line 4, is amended to insert the word “device” (before 100) sans underlining.
While the instant office action is being sent out for the purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner notes the possibility of a notice of non-compliance if similar issues of non-compliance occur in the future.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this office action and presented for examination. Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 19-20 are newly amended by the response received April 17, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 1, line 10, “tables ;” should be “tables;”.
Claims 2-7 are objected to for failing to alleviate the objection of claim 1 above.
In claim 6, line 3, there appears to be two spaces between “the” and “selected”.
Claim 7 is objected to for failing to alleviate the objection of claim 6 above.
In claim 7, lines 4-5, there appears to be a space preceding a semicolon.
In claim 8, line 10, “tables ;” should be “tables;”.
Claims 9-13 are objected to for failing to alleviate the objection of claim 8 above.
In claim 12, line 3, there appears to be two spaces between “the” and “selected”.
In claim 14, lines 10-20, the operations should be further indented, akin to the operations at claim 14, lines 6-9.
In claim 14, line 12, “tables ;” should be “tables;”.
Claims 15-20 are objected to for failing to alleviate the objections of claim 14 above.
In claim 19, line 3, there appears to be two spaces between “the” and “selected”.
Claim 20 is objected to for failing to alleviate the objection of claim 19 above.
In claim 20, lines 4-5, there appears to be a space preceding a semicolon.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “determining, a subset of the plurality of perceptron tables that have the highest branch history and that also have a matching tag and selecting a table of the subset of the plurality of perceptron tables” in lines 8-10. However, the original disclosure does not appear to provide support for this limitation. For example, the original disclosure (e.g., FIG. 5, step 504) does not appear to provide support for determining multiple perceptron tables that have the highest branch history.
Claims 2-7 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the corresponding index indicates an entry in each of the perceptron tables” in lines 5-6. However, the original disclosure does not appear to provide support for this limitation. For example, the original disclosure (e.g., paragraph [0045]) does not appear to provide support for an index corresponding to a perceptron table indicating an entry in each of the perceptron tables.
Claims 4-5 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejection of claim 3 above.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “determining, a subset of the plurality of perceptron tables that have the highest branch history and that also have a matching tag and selecting a table of the subset of the plurality of perceptron tables” in lines 8-10. However, the original disclosure does not appear to provide support for this limitation. For example, the original disclosure (e.g., FIG. 5, step 504) does not appear to provide support for determining multiple perceptron tables that have the highest branch history.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the highest branch history length as indicated by a corresponding index” in line 12. However, the original disclosure does not appear to provide support for this limitation. For example, the original disclosure (e.g., paragraph [0045]) does not appear to provide support for a corresponding index indicating a highest branch history length.
Claims 9-13 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 8 above.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the corresponding index indicates an entry in each of the perceptron tables” in lines 5-6. However, the original disclosure does not appear to provide support for this limitation. For example, the original disclosure (e.g., paragraph [0045]) does not appear to provide support for an index corresponding to a perceptron table indicating an entry in each of the perceptron tables.
Claim 11 is rejected for failing to alleviate the rejection of claim 10 above.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “determining, a subset of the plurality of perceptron tables that have the highest branch history and that also have a matching tag and selecting a table of the subset of the plurality of perceptron tables” in lines 10-12. However, the original disclosure does not appear to provide support for this limitation. For example, the original disclosure (e.g., FIG. 5, step 504) does not appear to provide support for determining multiple perceptron tables that have the highest branch history.
Claims 15-20 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejection of claim 14 above.
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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “determining, a subset of the plurality of perceptron tables that have the highest branch history and that also have a matching tag and selecting a table of the subset of the plurality of perceptron tables” in lines 8-10. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, it is indefinite as to what is being determined. For example, it is unclear as to whether the limitation is conveying that a perceptron table of the subset has a same tag as another perceptron table of the subset, or whether another interpretation is intended. For example, it is indefinite as to what it means for a branch history to be the “highest”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the plurality of perceptron tables that have the highest branch history” in lines 8-9. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, this limitation has insufficient antecedent basis in the claims. For example, it is indefinite, in view of the limitation “each perceptron table of the plurality of perceptron tables has a different branch history length and a different tag length” in claim 1, lines 3-4, as to how multiple perceptron tables have the highest branch history. For example, it is indefinite as to whether the limitation is conveying that the multiple perceptron tables have the highest branch histories (e.g., a first-highest branch history, a second-highest branch history, and so forth).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “selecting an associated perceptron from the selected table” in line 11. However, it is indefinite as to whether this associated perceptron is the same as, or different from, the perceptron of the limitation “determining a perceptron stored in a first perceptron table” in claim 1, line 5.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “selecting an associated perceptron from the selected table” in line 11. However, it is indefinite as to whether this selecting is the same as, or different from, the determining of the limitation “determining a perceptron stored in a first perceptron table” in claim 1, line 5.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “selecting an associated perceptron from the selected table” in line 11. However, it is indefinite as to whether this selected table is the same as, or different from, the first perceptron table of the limitation “determining a perceptron stored in a first perceptron table” in claim 1, line 5. Also note that “the selected perceptron table” is recited in claim 6, line 3.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the selected table of the subset of the plurality of perceptron tables having the highest branch history length” in lines 11-12. However, this limitation has insufficient antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the subset of the plurality of perceptron tables having the highest branch history length” in lines 11-12. However, this limitation has insufficient antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the plurality of perceptron tables having the highest branch history length” in lines 11-12. However, this limitation has insufficient antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the weights of the selected perceptron” in line 13. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the selected perceptron” in line 13. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims, and it is further indefinite as to whether this limitation is intended to have antecedent basis to “perceptron” of claim 1, line 5; “associated perceptron” of claim 1, line 11; or something else.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the weights” in line 13. However, it is indefinite as to whether this limitation has antecedent basis to “weights” in claim 1, line 2, or the particular weights recited in claim 1, line 13.
Claims 2-7 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 1 above.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “one of the plurality of perceptron tables has a zero-length tag” in lines 1-2. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, it is indefinite as to how a tag can have zero length, and how a perceptron table can have such a tag.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the perceptron tables” in lines 5-6. However, it is indefinite as to whether the antecedent basis for this limitation is “‘plurality of’ perception tables” in claim 1, line 8, or “subset of the plurality of perceptron tables” in claim 1, line 8.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the entry indicated by the corresponding index” in lines 8-9. However, it is unclear as to which entry, of the entries conveyed via the limitation “the corresponding index indicates an entry in each of the perceptron tables” in claim 3, lines 5-6, provides the antecedent basis. Note that “the entry indicated by the corresponding index” is also recited in claim 3, lines 9-10.
Claims 4-5 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 3 above.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a perceptron table with a highest branch history length” in line 3. However, it is indefinite as to whether this perceptron table is the same as, or different from, a table set forth in the limitation “the selected table of the subset of the plurality of perceptron tables having the highest branch history length” in claim 1, lines 11-12.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the obtained weights of the perceptron stored in the selected perceptron table” in line 3. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 7 is rejected for failing to alleviate the rejection of claim 6 above.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “creating the new perceptron comprises: when the first perceptron table has a zero-length tag, creating the new perceptron in a different perceptron table having a non-zero-length tag; or when the first perceptron table has a non-zero-length tag, creating the new perceptron in a different perceptron table with a branch history length that is higher than a branch history length of the first perceptron table” in lines 2-8. However, it is indefinite as to how “creating the new perceptron” can include a step that is in addition to “when the first perceptron table has a zero-length tag, creating the new perceptron in a different perceptron table having a non-zero-length tag; or when the first perceptron table has a non-zero-length tag, creating the new perceptron in a different perceptron table with a branch history length that is higher than a branch history length of the first perceptron table”, which is a scenario encompassed by the claim language in view of the open-ended “comprises” language.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “when the first perceptron table has a zero-length tag” in line 3. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, it is indefinite as to how a tag can have zero length, and how a perceptron table can have such a tag.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “determining, a subset of the plurality of perceptron tables that have the highest branch history and that also have a matching tag and selecting a table of the subset of the plurality of perceptron tables” in lines 8-10. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, it is indefinite as to what is being determined. For example, it is unclear as to whether the limitation is conveying that a perceptron table of the subset has a same tag as another perceptron table of the subset, or whether another interpretation is intended. For example, it is indefinite as to what it means for a branch history to be the “highest”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the plurality of perceptron tables that have the highest branch history” in lines 8-9. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, this limitation has insufficient antecedent basis in the claims. For example, it is indefinite, in view of the limitation “each perceptron table of the plurality of perceptron tables has a different branch history length and a different tag length” in claim 8, lines 4-5, as to how multiple perceptron tables have the highest branch history. For example, it is indefinite as to whether the limitation is conveying that the multiple perceptron tables have the highest branch histories (e.g., a first-highest branch history, a second-highest branch history, and so forth).
Claim 8 recites the limitation “selecting an associated perceptron from the selected table” in line 11. However, it is indefinite as to whether this associated perceptron is the same as, or different from, the perceptron of the limitation “determining … a perceptron stored in a first perceptron table” in claim 8, lines 6-7.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “selecting an associated perceptron from the selected table” in line 11. However, it is indefinite as to whether this selecting is the same as, or different from, the determining of the limitation “determining … a perceptron stored in a first perceptron table” in claim 8, lines 6-7.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “selecting an associated perceptron from the selected table” in line 11. However, it is indefinite as to whether this selected table is the same as, or different from, the first perceptron table of the limitation “determining … a perceptron stored in a first perceptron table” in claim 8, lines 6-7. Also note that “the selected perceptron table” is recited in claim 12, line 3.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the selected table of the subset of the plurality of perceptron tables having the highest branch history length as indicated by a corresponding index” in lines 11-12. However, this limitation has insufficient antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the subset of the plurality of perceptron tables having the highest branch history length as indicated by a corresponding index” in lines 11-12. However, this limitation has insufficient antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the plurality of perceptron tables having the highest branch history length as indicated by a corresponding index” in lines 11-12. However, this limitation has insufficient antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the weights of the perceptron” in line 13. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Note that “the weights” is also recited in claim 8, line 15. Note that claim 12 recites the limitation “the obtained weights of the perceptron stored in the selected perceptron table” in line 3. Note that claim 13 recites the limitation “the weights of the perceptron” in line 3.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the perceptron” in line 13. However, it is indefinite as to whether this limitation is intended to have antecedent basis to “perceptron” of claim 8, line 7; “associated perceptron” of claim 8, line 11; or something else. Note that “the perceptron” is also recited in claim 13, line 3.
Claims 9-13 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 8 above.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “one of the plurality of perceptron tables has a zero-length tag” in line 2. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, it is indefinite as to how a tag can have zero length, and how a perceptron table can have such a tag.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the perceptron tables” in lines 5-6. However, it is indefinite as to whether the antecedent basis for this limitation is “‘plurality of’ perception tables” in claim 8, line 8, or “subset of the plurality of perceptron tables” in claim 8, line 8.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the entry indicated by the corresponding index” in lines 8-9. However, it is unclear as to which entry, of the entries conveyed via the limitation “the corresponding index indicates an entry in each of the perceptron tables” in claim 10, lines 5-6, provides antecedent basis. Note that “the entry indicated by the corresponding index” is also recited in claim 10, lines 9-10.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the corresponding index” in line 5. However, it is indefinite as to whether the antecedent basis for this limitation is “a corresponding index” in claim 8, line 12, or “a corresponding index” in claim 10, line 4.
Claim 11 is rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 10 above.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the corresponding tag is a zero-length tag” in line 2. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, it is indefinite as to whether the corresponding tag does or does not exist. For example, claim 10, upon which claim 11 is dependent, recites the limitation “generating … a corresponding tag … the corresponding tag matches a tag of the entry … the corresponding tag does not match the tag of the entry” in lines 4-10, and it is unclear as to how the corresponding tag which is a zero-length tag can match or not match a tag. For example, it is unclear as to whether claim 11 is a proper dependent claim, if claim 11 no longer necessitates that the corresponding tag exists. For example, it is indefinite as to how a tag can have zero length.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the obtained weights of the perceptron stored in the selected perceptron table” in line 3. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a direction” in line 2. However, it is indefinite as to whether this direction is the same as, or different from, “a direction” as recited in claim 8, line 16.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “relocating, based on a number of the weights of the perceptron, the perceptron to a different perceptron table with a branch history length that is lower than a branch history length of the first perceptron table” in lines 3-5. Claim 8, upon which claim 13 is dependent, recites the limitation “selecting an associated perceptron from the selected table of the subset of the plurality of perceptron tables having the highest branch history length as indicated by a corresponding index; obtaining the weights of the perceptron” in lines 11-13. As such, it is unclear as to whether the first perceptron table of the aforementioned limitation of claim 13 is the same as or different from the selected table of the aforementioned limitation of claim 8.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “determining, a subset of the plurality of perceptron tables that have the highest branch history and that also have a matching tag and selecting a table of the subset of the plurality of perceptron tables” in lines 10-12. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, it is indefinite as to what is being determined. For example, it is unclear as to whether the limitation is conveying that a perceptron table of the subset has a same tag as another perceptron table of the subset, or whether another interpretation is intended. For example, it is indefinite as to what it means for a branch history to be the “highest”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the plurality of perceptron tables that have the highest branch history” in lines 10-11. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, this limitation has insufficient antecedent basis in the claims. For example, it is indefinite, in view of the limitation “each perceptron table of the plurality of perceptron tables has a different branch history length and a different tag length” in claim 14, lines 6-7, as to how multiple perceptron tables have the highest branch history. For example, it is indefinite as to whether the limitation is conveying that the multiple perceptron tables have the highest branch histories (e.g., a first-highest branch history, a second-highest branch history, and so forth).
Claim 14 recites the limitation “selecting an associated perceptron from the selected table” in line 13. However, it is indefinite as to whether this associated perceptron is the same as, or different from, the perceptron of the limitation “determining … a perceptron stored in a first perceptron table” in claim 14, lines 8-9.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “selecting an associated perceptron from the selected table” in line 13. However, it is indefinite as to whether this selecting is the same as, or different from, the determining of the limitation “determining … a perceptron stored in a first perceptron table” in claim 14, lines 8-9.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “selecting an associated perceptron from the selected table” in line 13. However, it is indefinite as to whether this selected table is the same as, or different from, the first perceptron table of the limitation “determining … a perceptron stored in a first perceptron table” in claim 14, lines 8-9. Also note that “the selected perceptron table” is recited in claim 19, line 3.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the selected table of the subset of the plurality of perceptron tables having the highest branch history length” in lines 13-14. However, this limitation has insufficient antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the subset of the plurality of perceptron tables having the highest branch history length” in lines 13-14. However, this limitation has insufficient antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the plurality of perceptron tables having the highest branch history length” in lines 13-14. However, this limitation has insufficient antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the weights of the selected perceptron” in line 15. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Note that “the weights” is also recited in claim 14, line 17. Note that claim 19 recites the limitation “the obtained weights of the perceptron stored in the selected perceptron table” in line 3.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the selected perceptron” in line 15. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims, and it is further indefinite as to whether this limitation is intended to have antecedent basis to “perceptron” of claim 14, line 9; “associated perceptron” of claim 14, line 13; or something else.
Claims 15-20 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 14 above.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “one of the plurality of perceptron tables has a zero-length tag” in lines 1-2. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, it is indefinite as to how a tag can have zero length, and how a perceptron table can have such a tag.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “each of the perceptron table” in lines 5-6. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, each can be “used to refer to every one of two or more people or things, regarded and identified separately”; however, the recited perceptron table is not two or more people or things.
Claims 17-18 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejection of claim 16 above.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “a perceptron table with a highest branch history length” in lines 2-3. However, it is indefinite as to whether this perceptron table is the same as, or different from, a table set forth in the limitation “the selected table of the subset of the plurality of perceptron tables having the highest branch history length” in claim 14, lines 13-14.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the obtained weights of the perceptron stored in the selected perceptron table” in line 3. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 20 is rejected for failing to alleviate the rejection of claim 19 above.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “creating the new perceptron comprises: when the first perceptron table has a zero-length tag, creating the new perceptron in a different perceptron table having a non-zero-length tag; or when the first perceptron table has a non-zero-length tag, creating the new perceptron in a different perceptron table with a branch history length that is higher than a branch history length of the first perceptron table” in lines 1-8. However, it is indefinite as to how “creating the new perceptron” can include a step that is in addition to “when the first perceptron table has a zero-length tag, creating the new perceptron in a different perceptron table having a non-zero-length tag; or when the first perceptron table has a non-zero-length tag, creating the new perceptron in a different perceptron table with a branch history length that is higher than a branch history length of the first perceptron table”, which is a scenario encompassed by the claim language in view of the open-ended “comprises” language.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “when the first perceptron table has a zero-length tag” in line 3. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, it is indefinite as to how a tag can have zero length, and how a perceptron table can have such a tag.
Response to Arguments
Applicant on page 10 argues: “The Applicant has amended the specification back to the original terminology and is amending FIG. 1 as suggested. The formalities from the non-entered response have been addressed.”
In view of the aforementioned amendments to the specification, the previously presented objection to the specification is withdrawn.
Applicant on page 10 argues: “The Applicant has amended the drawing as suggested.”
In view of the aforementioned amendment to the drawings, the previously presented objection to the drawings is withdrawn.
Applicant across pages 11-12 argues: ‘The Applicant refers to para. 0006, 0009 and 0011 for further explanation. The Applicant urges that these paragraphs explain what is meant by a matching tag and the operation is clear. … From the above, a tag match occurs if the corresponding tag matches the entry indicated by a corresponding index. If more than one perceptron table have a matching tag, the perceptron is selected from the table having the highest branch history length. The Applicant urges that the above discussion makes clear how to determine a matching tag. Under the reasonable-interpretation standard, a POSITA would understand that "a subset of the plurality of perceptron tables have a matching tag" corresponds to the tables whose tag comparisons succeed, and "selecting a table ... that have the highest branch history ..." means selecting the table with the maximum history length among that subset (i.e., the winning table), with the "associated perceptron" being the matched entry of that winning table. This tracks the disclosed lookup/arbitration flow and provides implicit antecedent basis for "selected table" and "weights of the perceptron that was selected," rendering the scope reasonably certain. See MPEP § 2173 (claims interpreted in light of the specification; antecedent basis may be implicit where meaning is clear to those skilled in the art).’
Examiner first notes that the comma in claim 1, line 8, makes it unclear as to whether that which is recited after the comma is that which is being determined. Examiner also notes that the relevant limitation does not require that a matching step is performed; rather, the relevant limitation merely requires a matching tag that is within a (possibly determined) subset of the plurality of perceptron tables.
In addition, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. Examiner notes that claim 1 neither recites a tag which is compared to a tag of a perceptron table, nor the matching operation itself. Examiner submits that the metes and bounds of a matching tag which has a same value as some other unrecited tag which may not even be associated with the recited method would be indefinite; for example, it is unclear as to how whether such an unrecited tag with a same value exists would be able to be definitively determined. In addition, Applicant appears to be arguing that the tag recited in claim 1 is not being compared to another tag recited in claim 1. Examiner recommends positively reciting the tag to which a tag of the perceptron table is matched to so that the metes and bounds of claim 1 are definite.
Examiner further submits that claim 1 must provide antecedent basis for the entire limitation “the selected table of the subset of the plurality of perceptron tables having the highest branch history length” rather than just merely “the selected table”. Examiner further submits that claim 1 did not previously necessitate that the selected perceptron had weights.
Applicant across pages 13-14 argues: ‘The examiner asserts pervasive indefiniteness based on antecedent wording, "selected table," but this is incorrect because claims must be read in light of the specification and given a reasonable, POSITA-informed construction; minor grammatical departures do not render scope unclear when the operative algorithm and data structures are expressly defined. The claim language, in context, recites a multi-table lookup producing a tag- matching subset and then selecting the winning table by maximum history length, which reasonably apprises the public of the boundaries of the invention. MPEP § 2173 makes clear that indefiniteness is not based on minor grammatical issues when scope is reasonably ascertainable. See also the Federal Circuit's reasonable-interpretation guidance (In re Suitco; In re Buszard). The Applicant urges that the meaning of tag matching and highest branch history and tag length are explained in the present specification including the paragraphs illustrated above and that a POSITA would understand the meaning of the claim terms. As such, the applicant traverses this rejection under Section 112(b).’
Examiner note that the particular rejection being argued via the reproduced language on the top half of page 13 does not appear to be based on “selected table” wording. Examiner notes that the particular rationale provided in the aforementioned particular rejection does not appear to be addressed. Examiner notes that the relevant limitation has been newly amended. However, Examiner notes indefiniteness issues associated with the newly amended language; see the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 section above.
Applicant on page 14 argues: “The claim elements require the following steps: determining, a subset of the plurality of perceptron tables[;] selecting a table[;] selecting an associated perceptron from the selected table[.] With the defined antecedents, it is clear that a table is first selected from the determined plurality of tables and then that a perceptron is selected from the selected table. The applicant believes that the claim is clear and if there is still an issue, request clarification.”
However, Applicant does not appear to address the cited “determining a perceptron” step of claim 1, line 5.
Applicant on page 15 argues: “The claim language, in context, recites a multi-table lookup producing a tag-matching subset and then selecting the winning table by maximum history length, which reasonably apprises the public of the boundaries of the invention. The USPTO standard of reasonable clarity, MPEP § 2173 makes indefiniteness not based on minor grammatical issues when scope is reasonably ascertainable. The action asserts pervasive indefiniteness based on antecedent wording; see also the Federal Circuit's reasonable-interpretation guidance (In re Suitco; In re Buszard). Given a reasonable POSITA-informed construction, minor grammatical departures do not render scope unclear when the operative algorithm and data structures are expressly defined. The claim language, in context, recites a multi-table lookup producing a tag-matching subset and then selecting the winning table by maximum history length, which reasonably apprises the public of the boundaries of the invention. The applicant traverses the actions finding of indefiniteness.”
Examiner acknowledges the aforementioned portion of MPEP § 2173; however, Examiner maintains that the argued limitation remains indefinite for the reasons set forth. Examiner generally notes that Applicant’s arguments above (e.g., “The claim language, in context, recites a multi-table lookup producing a tag-matching subset and then selecting the winning table by maximum history length”) does not appear to address the particular rationale of the rejection.
Applicant on page 16 argues: “The applicant accepts that there could be an ambiguity here and possibly an antecedent issue. As such, the applicant has amended the first of the two elements above as follows: …”
However, the newly amended language appears to catalyze various indefinite issues — see the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 section above.
Applicant on page 16 argues: ‘The action states that claim 1 recites the limitation "the weights of the perceptron that was selected stored in the perceptron table having the highest branch history length" in lines 12- 13. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Applicant's Response - The claim has been amended as follows: …’
However, the newly amended claim language appears to contain indefiniteness — see the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 section above.
Applicant on page 17 argues: “The claim has been amended as indicated previously and believes that such amendment addresses this finding of indefiniteness” (first instance).
In view of the aforementioned amendment, the associated previously presented rejection directed to “selected stored” language is withdrawn.
Applicant on page 17 argues: “The claim has been amended as indicated previously and believes that such amendment addresses this finding of indefiniteness” (second instance).
In view of the aforementioned amendment (which included deletion of language of the cited limitation), the associated previously presented rejection to that limitation is withdrawn.
Applicant on page 17 argues: “The claim has been amended as indicated previously and believes that such amendment addresses this finding of indefiniteness” (third instance).
In view of the aforementioned amendment (which included deletion of language of the cited limitation), the associated previously presented rejection to that limitation is withdrawn.
Applicant on page 18 argues: ‘The references to "weights" starting with line 2 are: "weights" (as the action noted), "the weights" (which refers to "weights" of line 2), "the weights" (which refers to "weights" of line 2). The claim has been amended as indicated previously and believes that such amendment addresses this finding of indefiniteness.’
However, Examiner submits that the first instance of “weights” does not necessarily provide antecedent basis to the second instances of “weights”. For example, the second instance of “the weights” is recited to be “of the selected perceptron”; however, the claim does not require that the selected perceptron is particularly a member of “perceptrons having weights” as recited in claim 1, line 2.
Applicant across pages 18-19 argues: ‘The specification expressly defines "zero-length tag" as: a 0 is generated for a zero length tag - para. 0012; a perceptron table either has a zero-length tag or non zero-length tags - para. 0008; and a zero-length tag is a "tag_len = 0" - para 0044 (see lines 8-10). Thus, the applicant urges that a configuration with tag_len = 0 indicating no stored tag bits and a deterministic matching rule (e.g., tag value 0/always matches), so the term is definite and the dependent claims remain proper. See SPEC [0044] (tag_len = 0; always-match behavior), SPEC [0012] (corresponding tag for the zero-length table is zero), and SPEC [0046]-[0047], [0065]-[0067] (index/tag generation, tag-match results, and arbitration by highest history length). These passages provide the operative meanings the POSITA would apply to the disputed phrases and confirm that, read as a whole, the claims particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.’
However, as paragraph [0012] discloses, “the corresponding tag generated for the perceptron table with the zero-length tag is zero”, and it remains unclear as to how a tag which is generated and which indicates “0” in some manner can nevertheless be of zero length.
In addition, as previously noted, to any extent to which Applicant is arguing that the recited one of the plurality of perceptron tables having a zero-length tag is equivalent to the recited one of the plurality of perceptron tables not having a tag, Examiner submits that such an interpretation would catalyze additional indefinite issues. For example, it would be unclear as to whether the independent claim, which recites a tag, actually necessitates a tag, if the broadest reasonable interpretation of a tag is a zero-length tag which would be equivalent to not having a tag. (For that matter, it might be unclear as to whether the independent claim, which recites weights, actually necessitate weights, if the broadest reasonable interpretation of a weight is a zero-length weight which would be equivalent to not having a weight.) For example, with respect to claims 10-11, it would be unclear as to whether the claims necessitate a corresponding tag to be generated, and unclear as to how a non-existent tag can be matched. For example, a dependent claim which no longer requires a tag, recited in a parent claim, to exist, due to further characterizing the tag as “zero-length”, may not be a proper dependent claim, for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant on page 19 argues: “Claim 3 is amended in response to address this objection.”
However, the aforementioned amendment appears to catalyze an indefinite issue — see the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 section above.
Applicant on page 19 argues: ‘The applicant believes that this is a reference to "the perceptron table having the highest branch history length" in claim 1, lines 12-1.’
However, it is unclear as to how the relevant limitation is a reference to "the perceptron table having the highest branch history length", in view of, for example, the lack of antecedent basis language.
Applicant on page 20 argues: “Claim 1 as amended to address this and now requires: selecting an associated perceptron from the selected table of the subset of the plurality of perceptron tables having the highest branch history length; obtaining the weights of the selected perceptron...”
However, claim 1 recites, as noted, selecting an “associated” perceptron from the selected “table”.
Applicant on page 20 argues: “Claim 6 is amended to refer to updating the obtained weights of the selected perceptron table.”
In view of the aforementioned amendment, the associated previously presented rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant on page 21 argues: ‘Claim 7 is amended to make it more than clear that only one of the two "creating" elements is activated by the binary nature of the two "when" statements.’
However, the rationale for the associated rejection appears to remain applicable — see the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 section above.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments across pages 21-30 that are analogous to previous arguments, Examiner’s response to arguments above are likewise applicable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH E VICARY whose telephone number is (571)270-1314. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM to 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, Jyoti Mehta can be reached at (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.
/KEITH E VICARY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183
