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
The Examiner acknowledges the benefit of US Provisional Application No. 63616952 filed January 2nd, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed January 21, 2026 and September 3rd, 2025 were considered. The two non-patent literatures submitted on September 3rd, 2025 was rejected for the quality of its submission. Resubmission is recommended for the literature to be considered.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on December 30th, 2024 and March 12th, 2025 were considered. The drawings submitted on December 30th, 2024 are objected to because the following figures utilize shading that makes it difficult to read: FIG. 3, FIG. 10, FIG. 11.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 9, and 16 are recites “intelligent redundancy management framework (IRMF)” however it is unclear whether this claim language refers to a specific protocol or whether it refers to any system that self-heals configurable data units within a reconfigurable data processor as explained in [0034] of the Specification. Amendment is necessary in order to offer clarity on the matter. For purposes of compact prosecution, the claim language “intelligent redundancy management framework (IRMF)” will be interpreted as any system that self-heals configurable data units within a reconfigurable data processor as established in the Specification.
Claims 2-8, 10-15, 17-20 are rejected because they inherit the characteristics from its parent claim.
Claim 1 recites “the plurality of reconfigurable units” in line 4 but there is no antecedent basis. The Examiner recommends amending it as “the array of reconfigurable units.” Claim 9 recites similar claim language in line 5 and thus are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 1 recites “the set of component” in line 12 but there is no antecedent basis. The Examiner recommends amending it to “the set of components.”
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-13, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Grohoski et al (US 11327771 B1) from henceforth referred to as Grohoski.
Per claim 1, Grohoski teaches
A data processing system comprising a coarse-grained reconfigurable (CGR) processor including an array of reconfigurable units configured to execute a dataflow graph (col 10, line 48, the array of configurable units),
a compiler (col 14, line 48, “a just-in-time JIT compiler”) coupled to provide a configuration file including a configuration for a plurality of components in the plurality of reconfigurable units (col 14, line 48-51, the runtime program can include a just-in-time compiler, which is responsive to data identifying unusable elements, or unusable sub-arrays, of the array of configuration units, to change the configuration file to be used for configuration in the array)
an initialization block (control plane) coupled to receive health data of a plurality of components in the reconfigurable units (col 12, line 1-13, the defect aware configuration controller can receive control signals indicating an unusable row (tagged sub-array or row)); and initialize an intelligent redundancy management framework (IRMF) with the health data of the plurality of components (col 15, line 14-18, the controller has access to a defect table. The controller loads defect information into the defect table. It is the Examiner’s interpretation that this defect information teaches “the health data” from the claim language)
a configuration block (data plane) coupled to configure a set of components in the plurality of components using the configuration, (col 11, line 49-54, Program load is the process of setting up the configuration stores in each unit in the array of configurable units using unit configuration files based on the contents of the bit file to allow all the components to execute a program),
a runtime coupled to execute a plurality of operations using the set of components, (col 17, line 50, just-in-time compiler)
wherein the IRMF is coupled to check health data of the set of components (FIG. 5, step 512, read defect table(s) for array) and identify the configuration as a defective configuration if a component in the set of component is defective (FIG. 5, step 513, col 17, line 53-63, if the procedures reads the defect table and if a row is tagged unusable, then the procedures shifts the unit configuration files of the tagged row to an adjacent row in order to troubleshoot the configuration file. It is the Examiner’s interpretation that entering this troubleshooting procedure of the configuration file teaches to the identification of the configuration as defective),
identify the configuration as a healthy configuration if all the components in the set of components are healthy, and (col 17, lines 56-57, if there is no tagged row, then the procedure skips to step 517 which essentially skips the troubleshooting of the configuration file. It is the Examiner’s interpretation that this teaches to the identification of the healthy configuration)
wherein the IRMF is further coupled to perform a healing operation for the defective configuration by replacing the defective configuration with an alternate configuration using a different set of all healthy components. (col 17, line 65-67, the shifted configuration file is saved. It is the Examiner’s interpretation that the shifted configuration represents the configuration using a different set of all healthy components and once it is saved, this new configuration replaces the initial configuration)
Per claim 2, Grohoski teaches
The system of claim 1, wherein the healing operation can be a static healing operation or a dynamic healing operation (col 4, row 41-46, such circuits can implement changes in routing and placement, in dependence on the tagged element of the array, without support of procedures, such as just-in-time compilation or configuration file selection, executed by a host processor, or alternatively in coordination with such procedures)
Per claim 3, Grohoski teaches
The system of claim 2, wherein in the static healing operation, the configuration file includes a default configuration with healthy or defective components, and an alternate configuration similar to the default configuration, the alternate configuration including healthy components (col 12, row 10-13, teaches circuits responding to repair signals transmitted that are “static on reset” and connect directly to corresponding configurable units in a point-to-point arrangement. Furthermore, col 3, rows 57-64 details how the alternate configuration data is derived. “Thus, where the homogeneous sub-arrays are rows, the placement of configuration data provides for rows on one side of the tagged row (X is greater than i) to be loaded with placements of configuration data blocks unchanged from the initial configuration data...[…]” From this excerpt, it is the Examiner’s interpretation that the alternate configuration data is similar to that of the default configuration data)
Per claim 4, Grohoski teaches The system of claim 2, wherein in the static healing operation, the IRMF is coupled to receive the configuration file from the compiler and update the configuration file by performing the healing operation before the runtime executing an operation. (col 4, row 59-67, teaches a statically configurable bus in which the configuration occur by application of a repair signals. Furthermore, col 12, row 10-13, teaches circuits responding to repair signals transmitted that are “static on reset” and connect directly to corresponding configurable units in a point-to-point arrangement. It is the Examiner’s interpretation that “static on reset” means that the procedure happens before runtime)
Per claim 5, Grohoski teaches
The system of claim 2, wherein in a dynamic healing operation, the IRMF performs the healing operation during runtime. (col 4, rows 5-16, a system includes memory storing a pre-compiled initial configuration file, and executes a procedure (“just-in-time compiler”) which modifies the pre-compiled configuration file in dependence on the tagged homogeneous sub-array to provide the placements updated in dependence on the tagged element)
Per claim 6, Grohoski teaches
The system of claim 1, wherein the component is a pattern compute unit (PCU), pattern memory unit, address generation and coalescing unit, or a switch. (col 5, rows 66-67, switches)
Per claim 9, Grohoski teaches
A method for a data processing system comprising a coarse-grained reconfigurable (CGR) processor including an array of reconfigurable units (col 10, line 48, the array of configurable units) configured to execute a dataflow graph,
receiving by a compiler (col 14, line 48, “a just-in-time JIT compiler”), a configuration file including a configuration for a plurality of components in the plurality of reconfigurable units, (col 11, line 49-54, Program load is the process of setting up the configuration stores in each unit in the array of configurable units using unit configuration files based on the contents of the bit file to allow all the components to execute a program),
receiving health data of a plurality of components (col 12, rows 1-13, the defect aware configuration controller can receive control signals indicating an unusable row),
initializing an intelligent redundancy management framework (IRMF) with the health data of the plurality of components, (col 15, line 14-18, The controller loads defect information into the defect table. It is the Examiner’s interpretation that this defect information teaches “the health data” from the claim language)
configuring a set of components in the plurality of components using the configuration, (col 11, line 49-54, Program load is the process of setting up the configuration stores in each unit in the array of configurable units using unit configuration files based on the contents of the bit file to allow all the components to execute a program)
checking health data of the set of components to identify each component as a defective component or a healthy component, (FIG. 5, step 512, read defect table(s) for array)
retaining the configuration if all the components in the configuration are healthy, (col 17, lines 56-57, if there is no tagged row, then the procedure skips to step 517 which essentially skips the troubleshooting of the configuration file.)
replacing the configuration with an alternate configuration by using a different set of all healthy components if a component in the set of components is defective, thereby updating the configuration file, and (col 17, line 65-67, the shifted configuration file is saved. It is the Examiner’s interpretation that the shifted configuration represents the configuration using a different set of all healthy components and once it is saved, this new configuration replaces the initial configuration)
configuring during runtime, the set of components using the alternate configuration. (col 4, row 41-46, such circuits can implement changes in routing and placement, in dependence on the tagged element of the array, without support of procedures, such as just-in-time compilation or configuration file selection, executed by a host processor, or alternatively in coordination with such procedures)
Per claim 10-11, similar claim limitation is recited as claims 2-3 and thus are rejected for similar reasons as claims 2-3 respectively.
Per claim 12,
The method of claim 10, further comprising performing the dynamic healing operation, by receiving configuration file from the runtime and updating the configuration file during the runtime. (col 4, rows 5-13, a system is described including a runtime processor and memory accessible to the runtime processor executable to provide the configuration data to the configuration controller of a spatially reconfigurable array of processors. In one technology, the system includes memory storing a pre-compiled initial configuration file, and executes a procedure (“just-in-time compiler”) which modifies the pre-compiled configuration file in dependence on the tagged homogeneous sub-array to provide the placements updated in dependence on the tagged element.
Per claim 13, similar claim limitation is recited as claim 6 and thus is rejected for similar reason as claim 6.
Per claim 16, Grohoski teaches
A non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising computer instructions that, in response to being executed by a processor (FIG. 1), cause the processor to:
produce a configuration file to configure an array of reconfigurable units to execute a dataflow graph, the configuration file comprising a configuration for a plurality of components in the array of reconfigurable units, (col 11, line 49-54, Program load is the process of setting up the configuration stores in each unit in the array of configurable units using unit configuration files based on the contents of the bit file to allow all the components to execute a program),
initialize an intelligent redundancy management framework (IRMF) to receive health data of the plurality of components, (col 12, line 1-13, the defect aware configuration controller can receive control signals indicating an unusable row (tagged sub-array or row)
configure a set of components in the plurality of components using the configuration, (col 11, line 49-54, Program load is the process of setting up the configuration stores in each unit in the array of configurable units using unit configuration files based on the contents of the bit file to allow all the components to execute a program),
check health data of the set of components to identify each component as a defective component or a healthy component, (FIG. 5, step 512, read defect table(s) for array)
retain the configuration if all the components in the set of components are healthy, (col 17, lines 56-57, if there is no tagged row, then the procedure skips to step 517 which essentially skips the troubleshooting of the configuration file.)
replace the defective configuration with an alternate configuration using a different set of all healthy components. (FIG. 5, step 513, col 17, line 53-63, if the procedures reads the defect table and if a row is tagged unusable, then the procedures shifts the unit configuration files of the tagged row to an adjacent row in order to troubleshoot the configuration file)
and perform a healing operation for the defective component by replacing the defective configuration with the alternate configuration, thereby updating the configuration file, and configuring during runtime, the set of components using the alternate configuration. (col 17, line 65-67, the shifted configuration file is saved. It is the Examiner’s interpretation that when the configuration file is saved, it updates the configuration file. Col 17, lines 45-48, runtime processor executes a procedure which modifies the routing information in the pre-compiled initial configuration file in dependence on the tagged element. It is the Examiner’s interpretation that the alternate configuration can be updated in runtime by utilizing the runtime processor)
Per claim 17-18, similar claim limitation is recited as claims 2-3 and thus are rejected for similar reasons as claims 2-3 respectively.
Per claim 19,
The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 18, wherein the IRMF is further coupled to perform the dynamic healing operation, by generating a new configuration using a different set of healthy components during the runtime. (col 4, rows 13-16, the runtime processor executes a procedure which modifies the routing information in the pre-compiled initial configuration file in dependence on the tagged element)
Per claim 20, similar claim limitation is recited as claim 6 and thus is rejected for similar reason as claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8, 14-15 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 as well as if rewritten to overcome any pending rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 7 recites
The system of claim 1, wherein the configuration block is coupled to perform an observability operation on a target component in response to a user input.
It is important to note that the configuration block referred here in claim 7 is the one utilized to configure the plurality of components for the coarse-grained reconfigurable processor in claim 1, and thus, the scope is reduced as such.
The Examiner was unable to find the prior art that represented such monitoring tool as the one described in the claim limitation. When searching for monitoring or observation tool in the scope of observing components of coarse-grained reconfigurable processor, the most relevant prior art (US10949328B2) teaches the use of “agents” in order to track and monitor the health of the components by tracking specific signals that are outputted. When the signals are suppressed or withheld, an abnormality is detected. However, there is no user engagement or user involvement in this teaching, and the Examiner was unable to find a prior art or an obvious combination of prior art to teach this.
As per claim 14, it recites similar claim limitation as that of claim 7 and would be allowable for similar reasons if necessary amendments were made.
As per claims 8 and 15, as dependent claims, they take on the characteristics of their parent claims and thus would be allowable if their parent claims were amended as necessary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYO LISA RUSIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1679. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 - 5:00 EST.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at 571-272-0631. 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.
/K.L.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2114
/ASHISH THOMAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2114