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 1-4, 7-14, and 17-21 are pending in this office action and presented for examination. Claims 1-4 and 9-13 are newly amended by the response received August 7, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
In FIG. 3, reference character 316 is not underlined.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-4, 7-14, and 17-21 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 “the plurality of weights, the matrix, and the vector corresponding to a respective compute engine of the plurality of compute engines” in lines 7-8. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, while “respectively” can be defined as “(of two or more things, with reference to two or more things previously mentioned) referring or applying to in a parallel or sequential way” and respective can be defined as “belonging or relating separately to each of two or more people or things”, “a respective compute engine” does not appear to be “two or more” things. For example, it is unclear as to whether the limitation is intended to convey that the plurality of weights corresponds to compute engine A, the matrix corresponds to compute engine B, and the vector corresponds to compute engine C. For example, it is unclear as to whether “the plurality of weights” as recited is intended to refer to a particular plurality of weights stored by a particular compute engine, or multiple instances of a plurality of weights respectively stored by multiple compute engines. Similarly, it is unclear as to whether “the matrix” as recited is intended to refer to a particular matrix or multiple matrices. Similarly, it is unclear as to whether “the vector” as recited is intended to refer to a particular vector or multiple vectors.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the vector for the CIM circuit of the first compute engine” in lines 14-15. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claims for the vector “for” the CIM circuit of the first compute engine”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the vector for the CIM circuit of the second compute engine” in lines 25-26. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claims for the vector “for” the CIM circuit of the second compute engine”.
Claims 2-4, 7-8, and 21 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 1 above.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the plurality of weights, the matrix, and the vector corresponding to a respective compute engine of the plurality of compute engines” in lines 7-9. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, while “respectively” can be defined as “(of two or more things, with reference to two or more things previously mentioned) referring or applying to in a parallel or sequential way” and respective can be defined as “belonging or relating separately to each of two or more people or things”, “a respective compute engine” does not appear to be “two or more” things. For example, it is unclear as to whether the limitation is intended to convey that the plurality of weights corresponds to compute engine A, the matrix corresponds to compute engine B, and the vector corresponds to compute engine C. For example, it is unclear as to whether “the plurality of weights” as recited is intended to refer to a particular plurality of weights stored by a particular compute engine, or multiple instances of a plurality of weights respectively stored by multiple compute engines. Similarly, it is unclear as to whether “the matrix” as recited is intended to refer to a particular matrix or multiple matrices. Similarly, it is unclear as to whether “the vector” as recited is intended to refer to a particular vector or multiple vectors.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the vector for the CIM circuit of the first compute engine” in line 15. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claims for the vector “for” the CIM circuit of the first compute engine”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the vector for the CIM circuit of the second compute engine” in lines 26-27. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claims for the vector “for” the CIM circuit of the second compute engine”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the plurality of weights, the matrix, and the vector corresponding to a respective compute engine of the plurality of compute engines” in lines 6-7. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, while “respectively” can be defined as “(of two or more things, with reference to two or more things previously mentioned) referring or applying to in a parallel or sequential way” and respective can be defined as “belonging or relating separately to each of two or more people or things”, “a respective compute engine” does not appear to be “two or more” things. For example, it is unclear as to whether the limitation is intended to convey that the plurality of weights corresponds to compute engine A, the matrix corresponds to compute engine B, and the vector corresponds to compute engine C. For example, it is unclear as to whether “the plurality of weights” as recited is intended to refer to a particular plurality of weights stored by a particular compute engine, or multiple instances of a plurality of weights respectively stored by multiple compute engines. Similarly, it is unclear as to whether “the matrix” as recited is intended to refer to a particular matrix or multiple matrices. Similarly, it is unclear as to whether “the vector” as recited is intended to refer to a particular vector or multiple vectors.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the vector for the CIM circuit of the first compute engine” in lines 16-17. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claims for the vector “for” the CIM circuit of the first compute engine”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the vector for the CIM circuit of the second compute engine” in lines 27-28. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claims for the vector “for” the CIM circuit of the second compute engine”.
Claims 11-14 and 17-20 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 10 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant on page 13 argues: “The Office has objected to the drawings on the basis that the drawings allegedly do not have satisfactory reproduction characteristics or appear not to track the specification description. See Office Action at 3. In response, Applicant has submitted revised drawings improving the reproduction characteristics of FIGS. 3 and 4 and amending FIG. 5 to expressly include element 540. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the drawing objection has been addressed and respectfully requests withdrawal of the drawing objection.”
In view of the aforementioned revised drawings, the previously presented objections to the drawings are withdrawn. However, the aforementioned revised drawings appear to introduce an additional issue — see the drawings section above.
Applicant on page 13 argues: ‘The Office rejected claims 1-4, 7-14, and 17-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as allegedly being indefinite. Office Action at 4-20. In response, Applicant has amended claims 1-4 and 9-13 to address the Examiner's indefiniteness concerns. In view of these amendments, Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims, when read in light of the specification, comply with §112(b) requirements. See M.P.E.P. § 2173.02 (explaining that "it is important to analyze claim terms in view of the application's specification from the perspective of those skilled in the relevant art since a particular term used in one patent or application may not have the same meaning when used in a different application."). Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the § 112(b) rejections.’
In view of the aforementioned amendments, the previously presented rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are withdrawn. However, the aforementioned amendments appear to catalyze various indefinite issues — see the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 section above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights