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 1-20 are pending in this office action and presented for examination. Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-11, 14-15, and 17-20 are newly amended by the response received August 21, 2026.
In claim 18, line 3, “one or more circuits ” is both underlined and marked with strikethrough.
In claim 18, line 5, “one or more circuits ” is both underlined and marked with strikethrough.
In claim 18, line 7, “one or more circuits ” is both underlined and marked with strikethrough.
In the amendment to the title, language is marked with strikethrough that was not present in the previous title.
Examiner has sent out the instant office action rather than a notice of non-compliant amendment for the purposes of compact prosecution. However, in particular view of both the list above and paragraphs 4-14 of the previous office action (dated May 21, 2026) which listed similar non-compliant issues, Examiner requests that future amendments be made in the appropriate manner conveyed in MPEP 714 to avoid future notices of non-compliant amendment.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. Examiner notes that data processing using processing element arrays is extremely widespread (for example, G06F15/80, G06F15/8007, G06F15/8015, G06F15/8023, and G06F15/803 are each directed to data processing using processing element arrays), and therefore the title does not have sufficient informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Examiner generally notes that if a satisfactory title is not supplied by the applicant, the examiner will, at the time of allowance, change the title by an examiner s amendment to increase informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
MPEP 608.02, section V, states that “[l]ead lines are required for each reference character except for those which indicate the surface or cross section on which they are placed. Such a reference character must be underlined to make it clear that a lead line has not been left out by mistake." However, in Figure 13, multiple reference characters (1334, 1322, 1330) appear to be directed to a same surface area.
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 Objections
Claims 2-3 and 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 2, lines 4-5, “the connection sets” should be “the plurality of connection sets” for antecedent basis clarity. (Also see, for example, analogous claim 20, line 4.)
Claim 3 is objected to for failing to alleviate the objection of claim 2 above.
In claim 11, lines 5-6, “the connection sets” should be “the plurality of connection sets” for antecedent basis clarity. (Also see, for example, analogous claim 20, line 4.)
Claim 12 is objected to for failing to alleviate the objection of claim 11 above.
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 “wherein the processing engine configuration represents a plurality of connection sets, the plurality of connection sets comprising physical interconnections between processing elements of the plurality of processing elements” in lines 7-10. However, the original disclosure does not appear to provide support for this limitation. For example, the original disclosure (e.g., paragraph [0076]) does not appear to provide support for the plurality of connection sets comprising both a) physical interconnections between processing elements of the plurality of processing elements, and b) another distinct element, which is a scenario encompassed by the claim language in view of the open-ended language “comprising”.
Claims 2-9 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the processing engine configuration representing a plurality of connection sets, the plurality of connection sets comprising physical interconnections between processing elements of a plurality of processing elements that form the processing engine” in lines 5-10. However, the original disclosure does not appear to provide support for this limitation. For example, the original disclosure (e.g., paragraph [0076]) does not appear to provide support for the plurality of connection sets comprising both a) physical interconnections, and b) another distinct element, which is a scenario encompassed by the claim language in view of the open-ended language “comprising”.
Claims 11-18 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejection of claim 10 above.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the processing engine configuration representing a plurality of connection sets, the plurality of connection sets comprising physical interconnections between processing elements of a plurality of processing elements that form the processing engine” in lines 4-8. However, the original disclosure does not appear to provide support for this limitation. For example, the original disclosure (e.g., paragraph [0076]) does not appear to provide support for the plurality of connection sets comprising both a) physical interconnections, and b) another distinct element, which is a scenario encompassed by the claim language in view of the open-ended language “comprising”.
Claim 20 is rejected for failing to alleviate the rejection of claim 19 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 “a plurality of processing elements forming a processing engine, each processing element of the plurality of processing elements operatively coupled with one or more different processing elements of the plurality of processing elements in accordance with a processing engine configuration, wherein the processing engine configuration represents a plurality of connection sets, the plurality of connection sets comprising physical interconnections between processing elements of the plurality of processing elements, each connection set of the plurality of connection sets associated with a processing element of the plurality of processing elements, each processing element configured to communicate with one or more different processing elements from the plurality of processing elements … cause sub-inputs from a first set of sub-inputs from among the plurality of sub-inputs to be provided to one or more first processing elements of the plurality of processing elements based at least on the processing engine configuration and the size of the input to the system” in lines 2-13 and 19-22. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite, at least in part in view of the “processing engine configuration” language. For example, it is indefinite as to whether a “processing engine configuration” is data that defines and is used to implement the plurality of connection sets. For example, it is indefinite as to whether a “processing engine configuration” is a higher-level concept relied upon as an aid to understanding, rather than a physical entity that the recited system comprises. For example, it is indefinite as to whether a “processing engine configuration” is intended to be wholly synonymous with “a plurality of connection sets”. For example, it is indefinite as to whether a “processing engine configuration” is intended to be wholly synonymous with “a processing engine”. For example, it is indefinite as to whether—and if so, how and to what extent—the “processing engine configuration” subject matter limits the remaining subject matter of the claim. For example, it is unclear as to what exactly it means for the processing engine configuration to “represent[]” a plurality of connection sets.
For example, paragraph [0005] discloses “The one or more circuits that determine the size of the input can: identify the processing engine configuration based at least on connection sets associated with each processing element of the plurality of processing elements”; however, it is unclear as to how the processing engine configuration can be identified based “at least” on connection sets, if a processing engine configuration “represents” a plurality of connection sets. For example, paragraph [0087] discloses “In some embodiments, the PE controller can determine the processing engine configuration, where each PE of the processing engine configuration is configured to receive at least one sub-input”; however, it is unclear as to how a processing engine configuration, which represents a plurality of connection sets, itself comprises each PE. For example, paragraph [0075] discloses “The PPE configuration 200 includes a two-dimensional array of PEs 202–232”; however, it is unclear as to how a processing engine configuration, which represents a plurality of connection sets, itself includes the PEs themselves. For example, paragraph [0075] discloses “As illustrated, the PPE configuration 200 includes four horizontal arrays (or rows) of PEs (row 1: PEs 202–208; row 2: PEs 210–216; row 3: PEs 218–224; row 4: PEs 226–232) and four vertical arrays (or columns) of PEs (column 1: PEs 202, 210, 218, 226; column 2: PEs 204, 212, 220, 228; column 3: 206, 214, 222, 230; column 4: 208, 216, 224, 232). In these examples, each PE of the PEs 202–232 can be associated with a given row or a given column. It will be understood that the dimensions of the PPE configuration 200 is merely an example, and that other configurations may include other dimensions”; however, it is unclear as to how a processing engine configuration, which represents a plurality of connection sets, itself includes rows of PEs, columns of PEs, and dimensions of PEs. For example, paragraph [0076] discloses “In some embodiments, the PPE configuration 200 can include PEs 202–232”; however, it is unclear as to how a processing engine configuration, which represents a plurality of connection sets, itself includes the PEs. For example, paragraph [0004] discloses “The one or more circuits can be to cause a first set of sub-inputs from among the plurality of sub-inputs to be provided to one or more first processing elements of the plurality of processing elements based at least on the size of the input to the one or more processors and the processing engine configuration”; however, it is unclear as to how the aforementioned “provid[ing]” is based on the plurality of connection sets, as inputs into the system do not appear to traverse the plurality of connection sets.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “cause sub-inputs from a first set of sub-inputs from among the plurality of sub-inputs to be provided to one or more first processing elements of the plurality of processing elements” in lines 19-21. However, it is indefinite as to whether same sub-inputs are provided to each of one or more first processing elements, or whether sub-inputs are respectively provided to first processing elements, or whether another interpretation is intended. Similarly, see claim 5, lines 1-3; claim 6, lines 1-3; and claim 6, lines 4-6.
Claims 2-9 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 1 above.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the connection sets comprising at least 4-neighborhood connection sets that represent communication between each processing element of the plurality of processing elements and adjacent processing elements of the plurality of processing elements” in lines 4-7. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, it is indefinite as to how connection sets can comprise both a) at least 4-neighborhood connection sets that represent communication between each processing element of the plurality of processing elements and adjacent processing elements of the plurality of processing elements, and b) another distinct element, which is a scenario encompassed by the claim language in view of the open-ended “comprising” language. For example, it is indefinite as to whether the “at least” language is further limiting “4” or “4-neighborhood connection sets”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are to: determine the processing engine configuration based at least on each connection set of the plurality of connection sets” in lines 1-3. Claim 1, upon which claim 2 is dependent, recites the limitation “the processing engine configuration represents a plurality of connection sets” in lines 7-8. However, it is indefinite as to how a processing engine configuration, which represents a plurality of connection sets, is determined based “at least” on each connection set of the plurality of connection sets.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the connection sets comprising at least 4-neighborhood connection sets that represent communication between each processing element of the plurality of processing elements and adjacent processing elements of the plurality of processing elements” in lines 4-7. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite with respect to the limitation “represent”. For example, it is indefinite as to whether the claim necessitates actual communication between each processing element of the plurality of processing elements and adjacent processing elements of the plurality of processing elements.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “each connection set associated with a processing element of the plurality of processing elements” in lines 3-4. Claim 1, upon which claim 2 is dependent, recites the limitation “each connection set of the plurality of connection sets associated with a processing element of the plurality of processing elements” in lines 10-12. As such, it is indefinite as to the manner by which the aforementioned limitation of claim 2 further limits the subject matter of claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 2 above.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the one or more processors that cause the first set of sub-inputs to be provided to the one or more first processing elements of the plurality of processing elements” in lines 1-3. However, this limitation has insufficient antecedent basis in the claims. Note that this limitation is also recited in claim 6, lines 1-3.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “sub-inputs from the first set of sub-inputs” in line 4. However, it is indefinite as to whether these sub-inputs from the first set of sub-inputs are the same as, or different from, “sub-inputs from a first set of sub-inputs” as recited in claim 1, line 19.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “sub-inputs from the first set of sub-inputs” in line 8. However, it is indefinite as to whether these sub-inputs from the first set of sub-inputs are the same as, or different from, “sub-inputs from a first set of sub-inputs” as recited in claim 1, line 19. Similarly, it is indefinite as to whether these sub-inputs from the first set of sub-inputs are the same as, or different from, “sub-inputs from the first set of sub-inputs” as recited in claim 5, line 4.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the one or more processors that cause the first set of sub-inputs to be provided to the one or more first processing elements of the plurality of processing elements are to: provide sub-inputs from the first set of sub-inputs to the one or more first processing elements” in lines 1-5. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, it is unclear as to whether the first set of sub-inputs, or sub-inputs from the first set of sub-inputs, are being provided to the one or more first processing elements. For example, it is indefinite as to if—and if so, how—the latter half of the limitation is further limiting the former half of the limitation.
Claims 6-8 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 5 above.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “sub-inputs from the first set of sub-inputs” in lines 5-6. However, it is indefinite as to whether these sub-inputs from the first set of sub-inputs are the same as, or different from, “sub-inputs from a first set of sub-inputs” as recited in claim 1, line 19. Similarly, it is indefinite as to whether these sub-inputs from the first set of sub-inputs are the same as, or different from, “sub-inputs from the first set of sub-inputs” as recited in claim 5, line 4. Similarly, it is indefinite as to whether these sub-inputs from the first set of sub-inputs are the same as, or different from, “sub-inputs from the first set of sub-inputs” as recited in claim 5, line 8.
Claims 7-8 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejection of claim 6.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a processing engine configuration, the processing engine configuration representing a plurality of connection sets, the plurality of connection sets comprising physical interconnections between processing elements of a plurality of processing elements that form the processing engine, each connection set of the plurality of connection sets being associated with a processing element of the plurality of processing elements, one or more different processing elements from the plurality of processing elements in communication with the processing element; and cause a first set of sub-inputs from among the plurality of sub-inputs to be provided to one or more first processing elements of the plurality of processing elements based at least on the size of the input to the processing engine and the processing engine configuration” in lines 5-17. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite, at least in part in view of the “processing engine configuration” language. For example, it is indefinite as to whether a “processing engine configuration” is data that defines and is used to implement the plurality of connection sets. For example, it is indefinite as to whether a “processing engine configuration” is a higher-level concept relied upon as an aid to understanding, rather than a physical entity that the recited system comprises. For example, it is indefinite as to whether a “processing engine configuration” is intended to be wholly synonymous with “a plurality of connection sets”. For example, it is indefinite as to whether a “processing engine configuration” is intended to be wholly synonymous with “a processing engine”. For example, it is indefinite as to whether—and if so, how and to what extent—the “processing engine configuration” subject matter limits the remaining subject matter of the claim. For example, it is unclear as to what exactly it means for the processing engine configuration to “represent[]” a plurality of connection sets.
For example, paragraph [0005] discloses “The one or more circuits that determine the size of the input can: identify the processing engine configuration based at least on connection sets associated with each processing element of the plurality of processing elements”; however, it is unclear as to how the processing engine configuration can be identified based “at least” on connection sets, if a processing engine configuration “represents” a plurality of connection sets. For example, paragraph [0087] discloses “In some embodiments, the PE controller can determine the processing engine configuration, where each PE of the processing engine configuration is configured to receive at least one sub-input”; however, it is unclear as to how a processing engine configuration, which represents a plurality of connection sets, itself comprises each PE. For example, paragraph [0075] discloses “The PPE configuration 200 includes a two-dimensional array of PEs 202–232”; however, it is unclear as to how a processing engine configuration, which represents a plurality of connection sets, itself includes the PEs themselves. For example, paragraph [0075] discloses “As illustrated, the PPE configuration 200 includes four horizontal arrays (or rows) of PEs (row 1: PEs 202–208; row 2: PEs 210–216; row 3: PEs 218–224; row 4: PEs 226–232) and four vertical arrays (or columns) of PEs (column 1: PEs 202, 210, 218, 226; column 2: PEs 204, 212, 220, 228; column 3: 206, 214, 222, 230; column 4: 208, 216, 224, 232). In these examples, each PE of the PEs 202–232 can be associated with a given row or a given column. It will be understood that the dimensions of the PPE configuration 200 is merely an example, and that other configurations may include other dimensions.”; however, it is unclear as to how a processing engine configuration, which represents a plurality of connection sets, itself includes rows of PEs, columns of PEs, and dimensions of PEs. For example, paragraph [0076] discloses “In some embodiments, the PPE configuration 200 can include PEs 202–232”; however, it is unclear as to how a processing engine configuration, which represents a plurality of connection sets, itself includes the PEs. For example, paragraph [0004] discloses “The one or more circuits can be to cause a first set of sub-inputs from among the plurality of sub-inputs to be provided to one or more first processing elements of the plurality of processing elements based at least on the size of the input to the one or more processors and the processing engine configuration”; however, it is unclear as to how the aforementioned “provid[ing]” is based on the plurality of connection sets, as inputs into the system do not appear to traverse the plurality of connection sets.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “cause a first set of sub-inputs from among the plurality of sub-inputs to be provided to one or more first processing elements of the plurality of processing elements” in lines 14-15. However, it is indefinite as to whether same sub-inputs are provided to each of one or more first processing elements, or whether sub-inputs are respectively provided to first processing elements, or whether another interpretation is intended. Similarly, see claim 14, lines 1-3; claim 15, lines 1-3; and claim 15, lines 4-6.
Claims 11-18 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 10 above.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the connection sets comprising at least 4-neighborhood connection sets that represent communication between each processing element of the plurality of processing elements and processing elements of the plurality of processing elements that are adjacent to the processing element” in lines 5-9. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, it is indefinite as to how connection sets can comprise both a) at least 4-neighborhood connection sets that represent communication between each processing element of the plurality of processing elements and processing elements of the plurality of processing elements that are adjacent to the processing element, and b) another distinct element, which is a scenario encompassed by the claim language in view of the open-ended “comprising” language. For example, it is indefinite as to whether the “at least” language is further limiting “4” or “4-neighborhood connection sets”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “determine the processing engine configuration based at least on the plurality of connection sets” in lines 3-4. Claim 10, upon which claim 11 is dependent, recites the limitation “the processing engine configuration representing a plurality of connection sets” in lines 5-7. However, it is indefinite as to how a processing engine configuration, which represents a plurality of connection sets, is determined based “at least” on the plurality of connection sets.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the connection sets comprising at least 4-neighborhood connection sets that represent communication between each processing element of the plurality of processing elements and processing elements of the plurality of processing elements that are adjacent to the processing element” in lines 5-9. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite with respect to the limitation “represent”. For example, it is indefinite as to whether the claim necessitates actual communication between each processing element of the plurality of processing elements and adjacent processing elements of the plurality of processing elements.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “each connection set of the plurality of connection sets associated with a processing element of the plurality of processing elements” in lines 4-5. Claim 10, upon which claim 11 is dependent, recites the limitation “each connection set of the plurality of connection sets being associated with a processing element of the plurality of processing elements” in lines 10-12. As such, it is indefinite as to the manner by which the aforementioned limitation of claim 11 further limits the subject matter of claim 10.
Claim 12 is rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 11 above.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the one or more circuits that cause the first set of sub-inputs to be provided to the one or more first processing elements of the plurality of processing elements are to: provide sub-inputs from the first set of sub-inputs to the one or more first processing elements” in lines 1-5. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, it is unclear as to whether the first set of sub-inputs, or sub-inputs from the first set of sub-inputs, are being provided to the one or more first processing elements. For example, it is indefinite as to if—and if so, how—the latter half of the limitation is further limiting the former half of the limitation.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the one or more first processing elements being of a first row of the processing engine to cause the one or more first processing elements of the first row of the processing engine to provide sub-inputs from the first set of sub-inputs to one or more second processing elements of a second row of the processing engine” in lines 5-8. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, it is indefinite as to what it means for the one or more first processing elements to cause itself to provide sub-inputs, relative to the one or more first processing elements providing sub-inputs. For example, it is indefinite as to whether the providing is in any way based on an active determination by the one or more first processing elements that the one or more first processing elements are in a first row.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “sub-inputs from the first set of sub-inputs” in line 7. However, it is indefinite as to whether these sub-inputs from the first set of sub-inputs are the same as, or different from, “sub-inputs from the first set of sub-inputs” as recited in claim 14, line 4.
Claims 15-17 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 14 above.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “sub-inputs from the first set of sub-inputs” in lines 5-6. However, it is indefinite as to whether these sub-inputs from the first set of sub-inputs are the same as, or different from, “sub-inputs from the first set of sub-inputs” as recited in claim 14, line 4. Similarly, it is indefinite as to whether these sub-inputs from the first set of sub-inputs are the same as, or different from, “sub-inputs from the first set of sub-inputs” as recited in claim 14, line 7.
Claims 16-17 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejection of claim 15.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “a processing engine configuration, the processing engine configuration representing a plurality of connection sets, the plurality of connection sets comprising physical interconnections between processing elements of a plurality of processing elements that form the processing engine, each connection set of the plurality of connection sets associated with a processing element and indicating one or more other processing elements from the plurality of processing elements; and causing sub-inputs from a first set of sub-inputs from among the plurality of sub-inputs to be provided to one or more first processing elements of the plurality of processing elements based at least on the processing engine configuration and the size of the input to the processing engine” in lines 3-13. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite, at least in part in view of the “processing engine configuration” language. For example, it is indefinite as to whether a “processing engine configuration” is data that defines and is used to implement the plurality of connection sets. For example, it is indefinite as to whether a “processing engine configuration” is a higher-level concept relied upon as an aid to understanding, rather than a physical entity that the recited system comprises. For example, it is indefinite as to whether a “processing engine configuration” is intended to be wholly synonymous with “a plurality of connection sets”. For example, it is indefinite as to whether a “processing engine configuration” is intended to be wholly synonymous with “a processing engine”. For example, it is indefinite as to whether—and if so, how and to what extent—the “processing engine configuration” subject matter limits the remaining subject matter of the claim. For example, it is unclear as to what exactly it means for the processing engine configuration to “represent[]” a plurality of connection sets.
For example, paragraph [0005] discloses “The one or more circuits that determine the size of the input can: identify the processing engine configuration based at least on connection sets associated with each processing element of the plurality of processing elements”; however, it is unclear as to how the processing engine configuration can be identified based “at least” on connection sets, if a processing engine configuration “represents” a plurality of connection sets. For example, paragraph [0087] discloses “In some embodiments, the PE controller can determine the processing engine configuration, where each PE of the processing engine configuration is configured to receive at least one sub-input”; however, it is unclear as to how a processing engine configuration, which represents a plurality of connection sets, itself comprises each PE. For example, paragraph [0075] discloses “The PPE configuration 200 includes a two-dimensional array of PEs 202–232”; however, it is unclear as to how a processing engine configuration, which represents a plurality of connection sets, itself includes the PEs themselves. For example, paragraph [0075] discloses “As illustrated, the PPE configuration 200 includes four horizontal arrays (or rows) of PEs (row 1: PEs 202–208; row 2: PEs 210–216; row 3: PEs 218–224; row 4: PEs 226–232) and four vertical arrays (or columns) of PEs (column 1: PEs 202, 210, 218, 226; column 2: PEs 204, 212, 220, 228; column 3: 206, 214, 222, 230; column 4: 208, 216, 224, 232). In these examples, each PE of the PEs 202–232 can be associated with a given row or a given column. It will be understood that the dimensions of the PPE configuration 200 is merely an example, and that other configurations may include other dimensions.”; however, it is unclear as to how a processing engine configuration, which represents a plurality of connection sets, itself includes rows of PEs, columns of PEs, and dimensions of PEs. For example, paragraph [0076] discloses “In some embodiments, the PPE configuration 200 can include PEs 202–232”; however, it is unclear as to how a processing engine configuration, which represents a plurality of connection sets, itself includes the PEs. For example, paragraph [0004] discloses “The one or more circuits can be to cause a first set of sub-inputs from among the plurality of sub-inputs to be provided to one or more first processing elements of the plurality of processing elements based at least on the size of the input to the one or more processors and the processing engine configuration”; however, it is unclear as to how the aforementioned “provid[ing]” is based on the plurality of connection sets, as inputs into the system do not appear to traverse the plurality of connection sets.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “causing sub-inputs from a first set of sub-inputs from among the plurality of sub-inputs to be provided to one or more first processing elements of the plurality of processing elements” in lines 11-12. However, it is indefinite as to whether same sub-inputs are provided to each of one or more first processing elements, or whether sub-inputs are respectively provided to first processing elements, or whether another interpretation is intended.
Claim 20 is rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 19 above.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the plurality of connection sets comprising at least 4-neighborhood connection sets that represent communication between each processing element and processing elements of the plurality of processing elements that are adjacent to each processing element” in lines 4-7. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, it is indefinite as to how the plurality of connection sets can comprise both a) at least 4-neighborhood connection sets that represent communication between each processing element of the plurality of processing elements and processing elements of the plurality of processing elements that are adjacent to each processing element, and b) another distinct element, which is a scenario encompassed by the claim language in view of the open-ended “comprising” language. For example, it is indefinite as to whether the “at least” language is further limiting “4” or “4-neighborhood connection sets”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “determine the processing engine configuration based at least on the plurality of connection sets” in lines 1-2. Claim 19, upon which claim 20 is dependent, recites the limitation “the processing engine configuration representing a plurality of connection sets” in lines 4-6. However, it is indefinite as to how a processing engine configuration, which represents a plurality of connection sets, is determined based “at least” on the plurality of connection sets.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the plurality of connection sets comprising at least 4-neighborhood connection sets that represent communication between each processing element and processing elements of the plurality of processing elements that are adjacent to each processing element” in lines 4-7. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite with respect to the limitation “represent”. For example, it is indefinite as to whether the claim necessitates actual communication between each processing element of the plurality of processing elements and adjacent processing elements of the plurality of processing elements.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “each connection set of the plurality of connection sets associated with a processing element of the plurality of processing elements” in lines 3-4. Claim 19, upon which claim 20 is dependent, recites the limitation “each connection set of the plurality of connection sets associated with a processing element of the plurality of processing elements” in lines 3-4. As such, it is indefinite as to the manner by which the aforementioned limitation of claim 20 further limits the subject matter of claim 19.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “each processing element” in line 7. However, it is indefinite as to whether this limitation is referring to each processing element of the plurality of processing elements of claim 19, line 7, or each processing element of some other subset of processing elements, or a particular processing element.
Response to Arguments
Applicant on page 15 argues: ‘Applicant has amended the title to "DATA PROCESSING USING PROCESSING ELEMENT ARRAYS." Applicant submits that this title is more descriptive and indicative of the invention as claimed, as it captures the use of processing element arrays to process data. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the objection to the Specification.’
However, Examiner notes that data processing using processing element arrays is extremely widespread (for example, G06F15/80, G06F15/8007, G06F15/8015, G06F15/8023, and G06F15/803 are each directed to data processing using processing element arrays), and therefore the title does not have sufficient informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Examiner generally notes that if a satisfactory title is not supplied by the applicant, the examiner will, at the time of allowance, change the title by an examiner s amendment to increase informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc.
Applicant on page 16 argues: “The Examiner objected to the drawings because multiple reference characters (1334, 1322, 1330, and 1326) in Figure 13 appear to be neither underlined nor associated with a lead line. Applicant has amended the drawings in a manner believed to overcome this objection. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the objection to the drawings.”
In view of the aforementioned drawing amendments, the previously presented objection to the drawings is withdrawn. However, the aforementioned drawing amendments appear to catalyze an additional issue: in Figure 13, multiple reference characters (1334, 1322, 1330) now appear to be directed to a same surface area.
Applicant on page 16 argues: “The Examiner objected to claims 8, 11-12, and 17 for minor informalities. Applicant has amended the claims in the manner suggested by the Examiner. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the claim objections.”
In view of the aforementioned claim amendments, the previously presented claim objections are withdrawn.
Applicant on page 16 argues: ‘Claims 1, 10, and 19 have been amended to recite that the processing engine configuration "represents" a plurality of connection sets, rather than reciting the configuration as a separate structural element. This clarifies that the configuration defines the connections between processing elements.’
In view of the aforementioned amendments, the associated previously presented written description rejections are withdrawn. However, the metes and bounds of “processing engine configuration” and “represents” appear to remain indefinite in the context of the instant application; see the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 section above. It is also unclear as to whether Applicant is arguing, via “This clarifies that the configuration defines the connections between processing elements”, that a configuration exists (e.g., as data) before any processing elements are connected, and that the configuration is used in order to implement the connections.
Applicant on page 17 argues: ‘Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 19, and 20 have been amended to change "including" to "comprising" with respect to the connection sets and physical interconnections. This addresses the Examiner's concern that "including" suggested the sets might include additional unsupported elements.’
However, the associated rejections are maintained, as “comprising” is likewise open-ended language.
Applicant on page 17 argues: ‘Claims 9 and 18 have been amended to replace "one or more circuits" with "circuitry," which recites sufficient structure and does not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).’
In view of the aforementioned amendments, the associated previously presented written description rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant on page 17 argues: ‘Claims 1, 10, and 19 have been amended to clarify that the processing engine configuration "represents" a plurality of connection sets. This defines the relationship between the configuration and the connection sets.’
However, the metes and bounds of “processing engine configuration” and “represents” appear to remain indefinite in the context of the instant application; see the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 section above.’
Applicant on page 17 argues: ‘The claims have been amended to remove "respective" terminology and replace it with "each." For example, claims 1, 2, 10, 11, and 20 now recite "each connection set of the plurality of connection sets" rather than "a respective connection set."’
In view of the aforementioned amendments, rationale for indefiniteness based upon “respective” language in the context of the claim language is withdrawn.
Applicant on page 17 argues: ‘Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 14, 15, and 19 have been amended to recite "sub-inputs from" a first set or second set of sub-inputs to clarify how sub-inputs are provided to processing elements.’
However, the aforementioned amendments appear to catalyze various indefinite issues — see the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 section above.
Applicant on page 18 argues: ‘Claims 2, 11, and 20 have been amended to recite that the 4-neighborhood connection sets "represent" communication between processing elements, rather than being "for" communication. This clarifies what the connection sets embody.’
However, it is unclear as to what it means for physical connections to “represent” communication. For example, Examiner submits that it is not typical for one of ordinary skill in the art to consider some kind of data communication path (e.g., a data bus, or a video cable, or so forth) as something that “represents” communication.
Applicant on page 18 argues: ‘Claim 10 has been amended to recite "the size of the input to the processing engine" to provide proper antecedent basis.’
In view of the aforementioned amendment, the associated previously presented indefinite rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant on page 18 argues: ‘Claim 17 has been amended to replace "that processing element" with "the processing element" to clarify antecedent basis.’
In particular view of an amendment made to claim 10, the associated previously presented rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant on page 18 argues: ‘Claim 19 has been amended to recite "each connection set of the plurality of connection sets associated with a processing element and indicating one or more other processing elements," which clarifies that the connection sets indicate the other processing elements.’
In view of the aforementioned amendment, the associated previously presented indefinite rejection is withdrawn.
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