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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made that the information disclosure statement has been received and considered by the examiner. If the applicant is aware of any prior art or any other co-pending applications not already of record, he/she is reminded of his/her duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Drawings
There are no objections or rejections to the drawings.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8, 12 and 14-19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mikawa et al. (US Patent Application Publication No 2022/0198251) hereinafter referred to as Mikawa.
Per Claim 1 Mikawa discloses a neuromorphic device, ( see figures 5-6) comprising
a first element group (101/104); and
a second element group (102/105),
wherein each of the first element group and the second element group includes a plurality of variable resistance elements (12),
wherein a volume of a part contributing to a resistance change (14a/b) is larger for each of the variable resistance elements belonging to the second element group (14b) than for each of the variable resistance elements belonging to the first element group (14a), (see fig. 13A) and
Additionally, claim 1 recites the performance properties of the device (i.e. wherein a resistance changing rate when a predetermined pulse is input is higher for each of the variable resistance elements belonging to the first element group than for each of the variable resistance elements belonging to the second element group). This functional limitation does not distinguish the claimed device over the prior art, since it appears that this limitation can be performed by the prior art structure of Name. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429,1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) See MPEP 2114.9
Per Claim 2 Mikawa discloses the device of claim 1, (see figures 5-6) including where a length of the variable resistance element belonging to the first element group in a longitudinal direction is shorter than a length of the variable resistance element belonging to the second element group in the longitudinal direction ( as shown in figure 6).
Per Claim 4 Mikawa discloses the device of claim 1, (see figures 5-6) including where each of the plurality of variable resistance elements is a resistive random access memory (ReRAM). [0004]
Per Claim 12 Mikawa discloses the device of claim 1, (see figures 5-6) including where the variable resistance elements of the first element group and the variable resistance elements of the second element group do not overlap each other in a plan view in a stacking direction of the variable resistance element. (see figures 5-6)
Per Claim 14 Mikawa discloses the device of claim 1, (see figures 5-6) including a connection wiring (18) connecting any one of the variable resistance elements of the first element group and any one of the variable resistance elements of the second element group. (as shown in figure 1A)
Per Claim 15 Mikawa discloses the device of claim 1, (see figures 5-6) including the first element group (101/104) and the second element group (102/105). Additionally, claim 15 recites the performance properties of the device (i.e. wherein the first element group performs a first multiply/accumulate operation, and the second element group performs a second multiply/accumulate operation, and wherein a sum of outputs from the plurality of variable resistance elements belonging to the first element group is input to the variable resistance element belonging to the second element group). This functional limitation does not distinguish the claimed device over the prior art, since it appears that this limitation can be performed by the prior art structure of Name. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429,1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) See MPEP 2114.9
Per Claim 16 Mikawa discloses the device of claim 1, (see figures 5-6) including the variable resistance elements (12) belonging to the second element group (102/105) and the variable resistance elements (12) belonging to the first element group (101/104). Additionally, claim 16 recites the performance properties of the device (i.e. wherein a pulse length of a write pulse input to the variable resistance elements belonging to the second element group is different from a pulse length of a write pulse input to the variable resistance elements belonging to the first element group). This functional limitation does not distinguish the claimed device over the prior art, since it appears that this limitation can be performed by the prior art structure of Name. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429,1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) See MPEP 2114.9
Per Claim 17 Mikawa discloses the device of claim 1, (see figures 5-6) including the variable resistance elements (12) belonging to the second element group (102/105) and the variable resistance elements (12) belonging to the first element group (101/104). Additionally, claim 17 recites the performance properties of the device (i.e. wherein a pulse amplitude of a write pulse input to the variable resistance elements belonging to the second element group is different from a pulse amplitude of a write pulse input to the variable resistance elements belonging to the first element group). This functional limitation does not distinguish the claimed device over the prior art, since it appears that this limitation can be performed by the prior art structure of Name. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429,1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) See MPEP 2114.9
Per Claim 18 Mikawa discloses the device of claim 1, (see figures 5-6) including the first element group (101/104) and the second element group (102/105). Additionally, claim 18 recites the performance properties of the device (i.e. wherein each of the first element group and the second element group is responsible for a calculation between different layers in a neural network). This functional limitation does not distinguish the claimed device over the prior art, since it appears that this limitation can be performed by the prior art structure of Name. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429,1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) See MPEP 2114.9
Per Claim 19 Mikawa discloses the device of claim 1, (see figures 5-6) including the first element group (101/104) and the second element group (102/105). Additionally, claim 19 recites the performance properties of the device (i.e. wherein the first element group is responsible for a calculation of an input layer side of a neural network from the second element group). This functional limitation does not distinguish the claimed device over the prior art, since it appears that this limitation can be performed by the prior art structure of Name. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429,1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) See MPEP 2114.9
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikawa as applied above.
Per Claim 8 Mikawa discloses the device of claim 1, (see figures 5-6) including a number of the variable resistance elements (12) belonging to the second element group (102/105) and a number of the variable resistance elements (12) belonging to the first element group (101/104).
Mikawa does not teach where a number of the variable resistance elements belonging to the first element group is larger than a number of the variable resistance elements belonging to the second element group.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a number of the variable resistance elements belonging to the first element group is larger than a number of the variable resistance elements belonging to the second element group, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 103 USPQ 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-7, 9-11 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Cited Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith.
Shima (US 2022/0407003) teaches an analogous device that theaches many of the features of claim 1, but does not teach the volume difference (see figure 9)
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant.
Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMI VALENTINE MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9786. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 7am-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, Eva Montalvo can be reached on (571) 270-3829. 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.
/Jami Valentine Miller/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights