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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/16/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is more than 150 words long. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to software per se.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a computer-implemented method, which does not provide sufficient structure to distinguish it as hardware as opposed to software. At best, Page 2, lines 14-21 of applicant’s specification, filed 07/29/2024 discloses a computing system for packet routing comprising a plurality of cores, each core comprising a processor and a switch. However, applicant’s specification does not disclose that the computing system is applicable to generating a Network-on-Chip routing table as recited in claim 1. Thus, applicant’s specification does not provide sufficient description to limit the scope of the computer-implemented method as recited in claim 1.
Regarding claims 2-10 and 12, the claims are rejected for depending on claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites a computer program, which is directed to software per se, which does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
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 1-12 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear as to what device or component is performing the recited method, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. To be more specific, it is unclear as to what device or component is performing the steps of “identifying source and destination…”, “sorting source-destination list…”, “iterating source-destination pairs…”, “splitting each source-destination pair…”, “iterating each of the sub source-destination pairs…”, “creating routing table…”, combining the routing tables…”, and “performing routing table deadlock detection…”. Is the Network-on-Chip performing the above steps, or is it some other system?
Regarding claims 2-12, the claims are rejected for depending on claim 1 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Applicant’s independent claims recite splitting each source-destination pair to multiple sub source-destination pairs based on one of the user-input constraints; iterating each of the sub source-destination pairs to find a shortest routing path in a sub source-destination list creating routing table for each sub source-destination pair based on the user-input constraints; combining the routing tables of sub source-destination pairs to generate a source-destination pairs routing table; wherein the user-input constraints comprising desired throughputs, desired data travelling latency, number of router-turns and region restriction for routing (as disclosed in Page 11, line 20 to Page 16, line 31 of applicant’s specification, filed 07/29/2024), which is neither taught nor suggested by the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Suthar et al. (US 10,565,346 B1) discloses routing and deadlock removal for network-on-chip.
Swarbrick et al. (US 10,628,547 B1) discloses network-on-chip configuration data for programming routing tables, and detecting deadlock.
Philip et al. (US 2014/0068132 A1) discloses network-on-chip and routing algorithm for determining routing paths between each source-destination pair to avoid deadlock.
Lih et al. (US 2015/0117223 A1) discloses generating a static routing table for network-on-chip by identifying the shortest path for a source-destination pair.
Fink (US 2019/0251227 A1) discloses network-on-chip and generating routing path tables based on the shortest hop counts between routers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAILOR C HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-1729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9:00 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, Huy Vu can be reached at (571)-272-3155. 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.
/BAILOR C HSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights