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 .
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The claims are not being interpreted under 35 USC §112(f).
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4-6, 8-12 and 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 should be amended to recite, “the calculation processing command generating circuitry is further configured to generate…” as the calculation processing command generating circuitry is already recited as being “configured to generate a command” in claim 1.
Claim 4 should be amended to recite, “wherein the data transfer command outputting circuitry is further configured to output” as claim 1 already recites “data transfer command outputting circuitry”.
Claim 5 should be amended to recite, “wherein the accelerator core of the multiple accelerator cores is further configured to execute…” as the accelerator core is already recited as being “configured to execute the calculation” in claim 1.
Claim 6 should be amended to recite, “wherein the calculation processing command generating circuitry is further configured to generate…” as the calculation processing command generating circuitry is already recited as being “configured to generate a command” in claim 1.
Claim 8 should be amended to recite, “wherein the calculation processing command generating circuitry is further configured to generate…” as the calculation processing command generating circuitry is already recited as being “configured to generate a command” in claim 1.
Claims 8 and 12 recite, “a unit of data”, which should be amended to recite “one unit of data” for consistency with the rest of the claims.
Claim 9 should be amended to recite, “wherein the DMAC is further configured to specify…” as the DMAC is already “configured to transfer…” in claim 1.
Claim 9 should be amended to recite, “asize of each divided portion
Claim 11 should be amended to recite, “outputting, by the calculation processing command outputting circuitry of the command list processing unit” as “a calculation processing command outputting circuitry of the command list processing unit” is already recited in a previous limitation of claim 11 or else the previous recitation should be amended to recite “a calculation processing command generating circuitry of the command list processing unit” to parallel the structure with claim 1.
Claim 14 is objected to for reasons analogous to those indicated for claim 9.
Claims 10, 12 and 14-15 are objected to for failing to cure the deficiencies of a base claim from which they depend.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-2, 4-6, 8-12 and 14-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 and analogous claim 11:
Claim 1 recites, “the command” in the phrase “output the command to the accelerator core”. However, the antecedent of this limitation is unclear. The claims previously recite a list of commands, data transfer commands, rearranged transfer commands, and a command to execute calculation. Accordingly, “the command” could refer to any of the previously recited “commands” and the scope of the claim cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite.
Claim 1 recites, “the command output by the calculation processing command outputting circuitry”. However, the antecedent basis of the limitation is unclear because the claim previously indicates that the calculation processing command output circuitry outputs “multiple rearranged transfer commands”. Accordingly, it is unclear which of the multiple commands “the command output” is referring to or if it is meant to refer to another command output by the calculation processing command outputting circuitry.
Claim 1 recites, “the data” in the phrase “process the data” and “read the data”. However, the antecedent basis of this limitation is unclear. The claim previously recites “data that are conditions of calculation stored in the external memory” and that is being transferred “to the local memory”, the claim further recites that a command to generate execution is generated while the DMAC is transferring the data, such that not all of the data has been transferred yet, but then recites to “process the data” and “read the data”. However, it is unclear if the data that is processed or read is all of the initially recited data that are conditions of calculation stored in the external memory and that are being transferred to the local memory, or only data corresponding to an amount of data that is the size of one unit of data that can be calculated by the accelerator core or which transfer is completed, or some other amount or unit, because it appears that not all of the data is stored in the local memory yet when execution begins. Accordingly, the scope of the claim cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite.
Claim 11 is rejected for reciting limitations analogous to those analyzed above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 4:
Claim 4 recites, “output a command to start transfer of the result of the calculation… while the accelerator core is executing the calculation”. Accordingly, it is unclear what “the result” refers to if the accelerator core is still executing the calculation because if calculation is ongoing, a result would appear to not have been calculated yet. Therefore, it is unclear whether “the result” refers to a partial or intermediate result of calculation, or if “the result” refers to a future result that is achieved after calculation is completed. Accordingly, the scope of the claim cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite.
Regarding claim 5:
Claim 8 recites, “further comprising multiple accelerator cores including the accelerator core”. However, this limitation is unclear because it requires that the device “further compris[e]” something that it already comprises. Accordingly, it is unclear if the device includes two of “the accelerator core” or one. Furthermore, it is unclear whether after “further comprising” the “multiple accelerator cores” the device requires a minimum of 3 accelerator cores or 2 accelerator cores as “further comprising” multiple accelerator cores would require the system to include at least 3 accelerator cores, but if one of the multiple accelerator cores is only the same as the already included accelerator cores then it would only require 2. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite, “further comprising at least one additional accelerator core, wherein the accelerator core the at least one additional accelerator core is configured to…”
Regarding claim 6:
Claim 6 requires “the command” to be generated “when the counted amount reaches a size threshold of one unit of data”, while claim 1 requires “a command” to be generated when “transfer of the size of one unit of data to the local memory is completed”. However, it is therefore unclear whether these claims recite two trigger conditions for generating “the command”, or whether they should be interpreted as multiple coincident conditions required to generate “the command”, or if satisfaction of one condition indicates that the other is also satisfied. Accordingly, the scope of the claim cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite. The Examiner suggests amending claim 6 to recite “wherein the calculation processing command generating circuitry is configured to determine when transfer of the size of one unit of data to the local memory is completed by determining when the counted amount reaches a size of one unit of data…”
Claim 6 also requires the second counter to count “an amount of data transferred from the local memory to the second local memory” while “the command to execute calculation by the accelerator core” appears to be for execution by the accelerator core of data stored in “the local memory” and not “the second local memory” as recited in claim 1. It is therefore unclear how the accelerator core could execute the command to execute calculation on data stored in “the local memory” when that data has been transferred away to the “second local memory”. Furthermore, how the accelerator core would “read the data from the local memory in response to the command output by the calculation processing unit” as recited in claim 1 when that data has been transferred to the second local memory as recited in claim 6. Accordingly, the scope of the claim cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite.
Regarding claim 8:
Claim 8 recites, “further comprising multiple DMACs including the DMAC”. However, this limitation is unclear because it requires that the device “further compris[e]” something that it already comprises. Accordingly, it is unclear if the device includes two of “the DMAC” or one. Furthermore, it is unclear whether after “further comprising” the “multiple DMACs” the device requires a minimum of 3 DMACs or 2 DMACs as “further comprising” multiple DMACs would require the system to include at least 3 DMACs, but if one of the multiple DMACs is only the same as the already included DMACs then it would only require 2. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite, “further comprising at least one additional DMAC, wherein the DMAC is a first DMAC, wherein each of the at least one additional DMAC and the first DMAC comprise a counter configured…”
Claim 8 recites, “the counted amount”. However, the antecedent basis of the limitation is unclear. The claim previously introduces “multiple DMACs” “including the DMAC” where each includes a counter configured to count an amount of data transferred. Accordingly, it appears that there are multiple “counts” as there are multiple counters configured to count. Therefore, it is unclear which counted amount among the plurality of counted amounts tracked by the counters is meant to be referred to by “the counted amount” or if another counted amount is intended. Accordingly, the scope of the claim cannot be determined, and the claim is indefinite.
Regarding claim 10 and analogous claim 15:
Claim 10 recites, “the data at the destination”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For example, claim 9 specifies a destination, but does not specify that there is data at the destination, or that the transfer of data from the source to the destination actually occurs to such that there is any data at the destination. Accordingly, the scope of the claim cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite.
Claim 15 is rejected for reasons analogous to those indicated for claim 10.
Regarding claim 12:
Claim 12 recites, “the calculation processing command generating circuitry”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claims never previously recite calculation processing command generating circuitry. Accordingly, the scope of the claim cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite.
Claim 12 requires “the command” to be generated “when the counted amount reaches a size threshold of one unit of data”, while claim 11 requires “a command” to be generated when “transfer of the size of one unit of data to the local memory is completed”. However, it is therefore unclear whether these claims recite two trigger conditions for generating “the command”, or whether they should be interpreted as multiple coincident conditions required to generate “the command”, or if satisfaction of one condition indicates that the other is also satisfied. Accordingly, the scope of the claim cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite. The Examiner suggests amending claim 12 to recite “wherein the transfer of the size of one unit of data to the local memory is completed when the counted amount reaches a size of one unit of data…”
Regarding claims 2, 4-6, 8-10, 12 and 14-15:
Claims 2, 4-6, 8-10, 12 and 14-15 are rejected for failing to cure the deficiencies of a base claim from which they depend.
Subject Matter Free From Prior Art
The subject matter of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-12 and 14-15 was searched for in the prior art, but not found. Accordingly, the claims are not rejected with prior art. However, the claims are subject to an outstanding 35 USC §112(b) rejection and accordingly is not indicated as allowable.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
In response to the amendments to the claims, the claims are no longer interpreted under 35 USC §112(f). Accordingly, the corresponding 35 USC §112(a) and 35 USC §112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
In response to the amendments to the claims, the previous objections to the claims have been withdrawn. However, in response to the amendments to the claims, new claim objections have been made as seen in the corresponding section above.
In response to the amendments to the claims, the previous 35 USC §112(b) rejections to the claims have been withdrawn. However, in response to the amendments to the claims, new 35 USC §112(b) rejections have been made as seen in the corresponding section above.
In response to the amendments to the claims, the 35 USC §103 rejections have been 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 CURTIS JAMES KORTMAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4404. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7:30 AM through 4:00 PM MT.
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, Reginald Bragdon can be reached at (571) 272-4204. 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.
/CURTIS JAMES KORTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2139
