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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14 and 16 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.
In the last line of claim 1, the term “1b multiplication” is not clearly defined in the specification. “1b multiplication” is mentioned in para 0026 and 0040 without defining the operational or functional details.
This is considered as lacking supportive description for the claimed feature.
Claims 3 and 4 are also rejected for being dependent from independent claim 1.
Also, in line 11 of claim 7, the term “1b results” does not have sufficient technical support from the specification. The claim is considered to contain subject matter not described in the specification.
Claim 8 is also rejected for being dependent from claim 7.
Claims 11, 13 and 14 are also rejected for lacking support for the “1b multiplication” limitation in claim 11, similarly with the rejection for claim 1 above.
Claim 16 is also rejected for lacking support from the specification for the term “1b results” similar to the rejection of claim 7 above.
Appropriate corrections/clarifications are required in order to overcome this type of rejection.
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 9, 10 and 19 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.
In claim 9, line 11, the portion “… data cache, further comprising…” does not make sense. It’s not clear what’s further comprising.
It’s not clear whether the “compute-in-memory processor” is further comprising, or the “data cache output memory in communication with the CPUs” is further comprising.
Claim 10 is also rejected for being dependent from claim 9.
Appropriate revision is required in order to overcome this type of rejection.
In claim 19, lines 11 – 12, the limitation “… the second level cache is configured to a plurality of adder trees for partial sum accumulation” does not make sense.
Should it be “configured as a plurality of adder trees….”? As described in para 0028: “the CCU 18 is configured as a plurality of adder trees 52…”.
Appropriate revision/clarification is required in order to overcome this type of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LY D PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-1793. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8am-5pm.
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, Amir Zarabian can be reached at 571-272-1852. 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.
/LY D PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2827 July 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights