DETAILED ACTION
The current Office Action is in response to the papers submitted 10/09/2024. Claims 1 - 20 are pending.
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 .
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
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 3 and 18 - 20 is 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 3 recites the limitation the subset of root nodes include two adjacent rows. Paragraph 0065 and figure 8 show that adjacent rows can include the same node such as rows 3 and 4 containing node 814. However, this is not the same as saying a node includes two adjacent rows. The rows include nodes, the nodes do not include rows as claimed.
Claim 18 recites “means for providing”, “means for distributing”, and “means for propagating”. As described below, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions of providing, distributing, and propagating. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
All remaining claims are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claims *** are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Evidence that claim 3 fail(s) to correspond in scope with that which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA applications the applicant regards as the invention can be found in the specification filed 10/09/2024. In that paper, the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA applications the applicant has stated adjacent rows 3 and 4 include the same node, and this statement indicates that the invention is different from what is defined in the claim(s) because the claims state a node includes two adjacent rows. A node, as disclosed in the specification, maybe in a row and/or column but does not include a row or column. This makes the cited limitation of a node include two adjacent rows indefinite since there is no indicate a node includes rows. For examination, the limitation will be treated as root nodes are included among two adjacent rows.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the network of nodes" in line 1. There is no previous mention in the claim or any base claim of a network of nodes. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination the network of nodes will be treated as referring to the network of computational nodes in base claim 1.
Claim 7 contains similar language rejected in claim 5 and is rejected for similar reasons as claim 5 is rejected.
Claim limitations “means for providing” in claim 20 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states the claimed function of providing may be provided using wires, cables, wireless technology or certain protocols. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the providing. A list of what may qualify as the providing mean is not adequate structure for performing the providing because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the use of communication paths and protocols can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which filter structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitations “means for distributing” in claim 20 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states the claimed function of distributing may be provided using a H-tree configuration. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the distributing. The use of a H-tree is not adequate structure for performing the providing because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the use of H-tree can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which filter structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitations “means for propagating” in claim 20 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states the claimed function of propagating the clock signal as a wave. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the propagating in the form of a wave. Using a wave to do the propagating is not adequate structure for performing the propagating because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the creation and use of a wave can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which filter structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) *** is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carson et al. (WO 2024/040108) referred to as Carson.
Regarding claim 1, Carson teaches a method for wave clock distribution [Paragraph 0041; The clock signal is propagated through the node array] to a network of computational nodes [102, Fig 1], comprising:
providing, from a clock source [106, Fig 1; Paragraph 0035; Item 106 is a clock generator that provides a clock signal to the node array], a clock signal to a subset of nodes [Paragraph 0038; The root nodes in the corners are a subset of nodes in the array] of the network of computational nodes [102, Fig 1];
distributing, from each node of the subset of nodes [Paragraph 0038; The root nodes in the corners are a subset of nodes in the array], the clock signal to a respective adjacent node [Figs 2 - 3; Paragraphs 0039 – 0041 and 0047; The clock signal is distributed in diagonally or in rows and columns from a root node along the rows and columns to adjacent nodes]; and
propagating, via the adjacent nodes, the clock signal to any additional nodes of the network of computational nodes [102, Fig 1] that are not among the subset of nodes or the adjacent nodes [Figs 2 - 3; Paragraphs 0040 - 0041 and 0047; The clock signal is propagated from the root node to other nodes in the array that are not root nodes in a diagonal, vertical, or horizontal manner].
Regarding claim 2, Carson teaches wherein the network of computational nodes [102, Fig 1] comprises a plurality of rows and a plurality of columns arranged in a rectangular pattern [Paragraph 0040; The nodes are organized in a rectangular design], wherein the subset of nodes [Paragraph 0038; The root nodes in the corners are a subset of nodes in the array] is arranged in one or more of the plurality of rows [Fig 1; Paragraph 0040; Root node labeled “1” is in row 1 and column 1], and wherein the distributing and propagating occur along each row via the plurality of columns [Figs 2 - 3; Paragraphs 0040 - 0041 and 0047; The clock signal is propagated from the root node to other nodes in the array that are not root nodes in a diagonal, vertical, or horizontal manner along the rows and columns].
Regarding claim 3, Carson teaches the subset of nodes [Paragraph 0038; The root nodes in the corners are a subset of nodes in the array] includes two adjacent rows, and wherein the distributing and propagating occur upward along the plurality of columns from a first row of the two adjacent rows and wherein the distributing and propagating also occur downward along the plurality of columns from a second row of the two adjacent rows [Figs 2 – 3; Paragraphs 0042 and 0047; The root nodes are among multiple adjacent nodes and the clock signal is provided upward and downward along the rows and columns of nodes].
Regarding claim 4, Carson teaches the distributing and propagating [Figs 2 - 3; Paragraphs 0039 – 0041 and 0047; The clock signal is distributed in diagonally or in rows and columns from a root node along the rows and columns to adjacent nodes] occur along the plurality of columns such that each node within each row of nodes receives the clock signal synchronously [Fig 2; Paragraphs 0035 and 0039 – 0041; The node propagate a clock signal through each row in a column and the nodes communicate synchronously. Column 13 shows nodes in rows 2 – 15 of column 15 receive the same clock signal at the same time since they have the same delay].
Regarding claim 5, Carson teaches the network of nodes [102, Fig 1] is arranged in a non-rectangular pattern [Figs 2 - 3; Paragraphs 0039 – 0041 and 0047; Distributing the clock signal along diagonals shows a non-rectangular pattern of the nodes], wherein the respective adjacent nodes receive the clock signal synchronously [Fig 2; Paragraphs 0035 and 0039 – 0041; The node propagate a clock signal through each row in a column and the nodes communicate synchronously. Column 13 shows nodes in rows 2 – 15 of column 15 receive the same clock signal at the same time since they have the same delay], and wherein, during the propagating [Figs 2 - 3; Paragraphs 0040 - 0041 and 0047; The clock signal is propagated from the root node to other nodes in the array that are not root nodes in a diagonal, vertical, or horizontal manner], each of the additional nodes receives the clock signal synchronously with other of the additional nodes based on a number of nodes the clock signal propagates through from one of the respective adjacent nodes [Fig 2; Paragraphs 0035 and 0039 – 0041; The node propagate a clock signal through each row in a column and the nodes communicate synchronously. Column 13 shows nodes in rows 2 – 15 of column 15 receive the same clock signal at the same time since they have the same delay].
Regarding claim 6, Carson teaches the non-rectangular pattern comprises a circular pattern, an oval pattern, a polygon pattern, or an irregular pattern [Figs 2 - 3; The clock delay is not linear going vertically, horizontally, or diagonally showing the pattern is irregular].
Regarding claim 7, Carson teaches receiving a data signal at a receiving node of the network of nodes [102, Fig 1; Figs 2 – 5B; Signals are received in nodes of the node array along the lines shown]; and
modifying a timing of the data signal based on whether the data signal is sent in a direction of the distributing and propagating [Paragraphs 0052 – 0054; The timing if a signal can be changed based on if the signal is sent along the same direction as the clock or not].
Regarding claim 8, Carson teaches when the data signal is sent in a same direction as the distributing and propagating, the data signal is delayed [Fig 4A; Paragraph 0053 - 0055; Signals in the same direction as the clock will have a delay].
Regarding claim 9, Carson teaches when the data signal is sent in an opposite direction as the distributing and propagating, the data signal is not delayed [Fig 4A; Paragraph 0053 - 0055; Signals in the opposite direction as the clock will have less of a delay or no delay].
Regarding claim 11, Carson teaches selecting an operating mode of each of the nodes of the network of computational nodes [102, Fig 1] based on a location of the node relative to the distributing and propagating [Paragraphs 0052 – 0054; The modes of the nodes, which are the delay times, are based on where the node is, what direction the communication is going, and the direction of the clock signal].
Regarding claim 12, Carson teaches selecting the operating mode of each of the nodes comprises selecting the operating mode based on whether data reception for each node is in a direction of the distributing and propagating [Paragraphs 0052 – 0054; The mode of a node is based on the direction of the distributing and propagation of the clock signal and communication signal].
Regarding claim 13, Carson teaches the operating mode is selected from a set of operating modes comprising a first mode when the data reception for the node is in the direction of the distributing and propagating, a second mode when the data reception for the node is in an opposite direction as the distributing and propagating, and a third mode when adjacent nodes have a clock signal with zero skew [Paragraphs 0044 and 0052 – 0054; The communication signal in the direction of the clock signal is one mode, the communication signal in the opposite direction of the clock signal is another mode, and the third mode if when the skew is eliminated as shown in column 13 in figure 2 where the skew is 14 for multiple nodes].
Regarding claim 14, Carson teaches the clock source [106, Fig 1] comprises a phase locked loop [Paragraph 0035].
Claims 15 – 10 are system claims corresponding to claims 1 – 3 and are rejecting the same prior art and reasoning as claim 1 – 3 above. Carson disclose the system [Fig 1; Paragraph 0035; The node array is part of the system on a wafer].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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.
Claim(s) *** is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carson et al. (WO 2024/040108) referred to as Carson as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Belk et al. (Pub. No.: US 2007/0019686) referred to as Belk.
Regarding claim 10, Carson teaches providing, from a clock source [106, Fig 1; Paragraph 0035; Item 106 is a clock generator that provides a clock signal to the node array], a clock signal to a subset of nodes [Paragraph 0038; The root nodes in the corners are a subset of nodes in the array] of the network of computational nodes [102, Fig 1].
However, Carson may not specifically disclose the limitation(s) of when the clock signal at the receiving node is a same clock signal as at a sending node, the data signal is buffered.
Belk discloses when the clock signal at the receiving node is a same clock signal as at a sending node, the data signal is buffered [Paragraph 0048; The average buffer fill level being constant shows data is being buffered when the clock signal is the same at the source and destination].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Belk in Carson, because it allows the system to take into account “cell jitter” by looking at the fill level of a buffer overtime before changing any settings in the system due to delays [Paragraphs 0048]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER D BIRKHIMER whose telephone number is (571)270-1178. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 Hoteling.
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, Charles Rones can be reached at 571-272-4085. 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.
/Christopher D Birkhimer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2138