DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-13 have been examined.
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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of KR 10-2024-0140395 was electronically retrieved by the USPTO on May 13, 2025.
Specification
The title of the invention is not sufficiently descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3, delete “plurality of” (for consistency with lines 2 and 4).
In line 3, replace the semicolon with a comma.
There is a lack of basis for “the plurality of first additional nodes”.
In line 5, delete “plurality of” before “first tree nodes”.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 50, replace “three nodes” with --tree nodes--.
Please confirm paragraph 54 is correct. Applicant states that nodes 202 and 204 have heights of 1 and 2, but also says the height of a top node may correspond to 4. Isn’t node 202 in FIG.2 a top node? How could it have both a height of 1 (or 2) and also 4?
In paragraph 60, replace “the node” with --the nodes--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following minor informalities:
In FIG.1, the middle one of the three additional nodes 103 has a different pattern from the others that is not in the legend.
FIG.2 includes the same issue as FIG.1 and additionally does not include the 204 pattern in the legend.
FIGs.6 and 8-11 include similar issues as FIGs.1-2.
FIGs.8-11 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3), which states that numbers, letters, and reference characters should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. Applicant may leave a blank space in the hatching or shading where the text occurs so that it appears distinct.
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. Please ensure any replacement is in only black and white (like the originals) to avoid pixelation and further objection. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” 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
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The last paragraph is grammatically incorrect. Should --among-- be inserted before “the” in the 2nd to last line (like in claim 1)?
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3, replace “apparatus” with --apparatus, the method--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitations are:
In claim 1, “first tree nodes configured to connect operation nodes…”. The examiner is unclear on what the structure is for these nodes. FIG.3 shows an operation node black box, and FIG.4 shows an additional node. However, the examiner could find no FIG or paragraph detailing the structure of a tree node. Paragraphs 108-113 mention a processor (and variations thereof); however, connecting operation nodes of a tree is not a coextensive function (MPEP 2181(II)(B)), and there is no specific algorithm disclosed for performing the connecting. Therefore, a processor (or the like) in this context is insufficient structure for purposes of 112(f) interpretation. As such, broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) is taken and 112(a)/(b) rejections appear below.
In claim 1, “first additional nodes configured to connect root nodes…” The examiner is unclear on what the structure is for these nodes. While FIG.4 shows an additional node, it is not clear what structure is used to connect root nodes. For instance, it is not clear if an additional node includes only one root input, and, if so, how the structure of FIG.4 would operate. For similar reasoning given above, a processor (or variation thereof) is insufficient in this context. As such, BRI is taken and 112(a)/(b) rejections appear below.
In claim 1, “a first intermediate node is configured to: perform a reduction operation…”. From FIG.4, this node is interpreted to be an adder.
In claim 1, “a first intermediate node is configured to: control a data flow of a result…according to a first target height…”. From FIG.4 and paragraph 69, this node is interpreted to be a comparator (labeled as “Target height > current height”).
In claim 3, “the first intermediate node is configured to transmit the result of the reduction operation…and broadcast data received from the parent node…”. From FIG.4, the node is interpreted to include a selector/multiplexer (“Selector 1”) to transmit the result, and to include another selector/multiplexer (“Selector 2”) to broadcast.
In claim 4, “the first intermediate node is configured to broadcast the result …”. From FIG.4, the node is interpreted to include a selector/multiplexer (“Selector 2”).
In claim 5, “second tree nodes configured to connect operation nodes”. For reasoning similar to that given for the first tree nodes above, applicant has not sufficiently disclosed structure for these nodes. As such, BRI is taken and 112(a)/(b) rejections appear below.
In claim 8, “second additional nodes configured to connect root nodes…”. For reasoning similar to that given for the first additional nodes above, applicant has not sufficiently disclosed structure for these nodes. As such, BRI is taken and 112(a)/(b) rejections appear below.
In claim 8, “a second intermediate node is configured to: perform a reduction operation…”. From FIG.4, this node is interpreted to be an adder.
In claim 8, “a second intermediate node is configured to: control a data flow of a result…according to a second target height…”. From FIG.4 and paragraph 69, this node is interpreted to be a comparator (labeled as “Target height > current height”).
In claim 10 (and similarly claim 13), “a plurality of tree nodes configured to connect a plurality of nodes”. For similar reasoning given above for tree nodes, applicant has not sufficiently disclosed structure for these nodes. As such, BRI is taken and 112(a)/(b) rejections appear below.
In claim 10 (and similarly claim 13), “additional nodes configured to connect root nodes…”. For reasoning similar to that given for additional nodes above, applicant has not sufficiently disclosed structure for these nodes. As such, BRI is taken and 112(a)/(b) rejections appear below.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-13 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.
Regarding claims 1, 5, 8, 10, and 13, as described above in the “Claim Interpretation” section, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure for various nodes to perform the claimed functions. 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. Applicant may amend the claim(s) to set forth node circuits to avoid 112(f) interpretation.
Claims 2-9 and 11-12 are rejected due to their dependence on a claim lacking adequate written description.
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 1-13 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.
Regarding claims 1, 5, 8, 10, and 13, various node + function limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, as discussed above in the “Claim Interpretation” section, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure(s), material(s), or act(s) for performing the entire claimed function(s) and to clearly link the structure(s), material(s), or act(s) to the function(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim(s) so that the claim limitation(s) will no longer be interpreted as a limitation(s) 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(s), material(s), or act(s) perform the entire claimed function(s), 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(s), material(s), or act(s) disclosed therein to the function(s) recited in the claim(s), 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(s), material(s), or act(s) and clearly links them to the function(s) so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure(s), material(s), or act(s) perform the claimed function(s), applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure(s), material(s), or act(s) for performing the claimed function(s) and clearly links or associates the structure(s), material(s), or act(s) to the claimed function(s), without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure(s), material(s), or act(s), which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function(s). For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-9 and 11-12 are rejected due to their dependence on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Douglas et al. (US 5,333,268).
Referring to claim 1, Douglas has taught a distributed processing apparatus comprising:
a plurality of operation nodes (FIG.2A, leaf nodes) grouped into a plurality of first groups (leaf nodes 0-3 form one group, leaf nodes 4-7 form another group, etc. Alternatively, a first group would be leaf nodes 0-3 and node 20(1,0), another first group would be leaf nodes 4-7 and node 20(1,1), etc.);
a plurality of first tree nodes configured to connect operation nodes, among the plurality of operation nodes, belonging to each of the plurality of first groups (FIG.2A, tree notes 20(1,0), 20(1,1), etc., which each connect leaf nodes of a respective group); and
a plurality of first additional nodes configured to connect root nodes of the plurality of first groups (FIG.2A, additional nodes 20(2,0), and others on the same level that are not shown, e.g. 20(2,1), etc. Each of these connects roots 20(1,0), 20(1,1), etc.),
wherein, in a first tree structure comprising the plurality of first additional nodes and the plurality of first tree nodes (FIG.2A), a first intermediate node is configured to:
perform a reduction operation on data received from child nodes in the first tree structure (see column 6, lines 8-22, and column 19, line 3 to column 20, line 24. The reduction operation could include addition (column 19, lines 10-13). Thus, the intermediate node would include an adder, which is consistent with 112(f) interpretation. The intermediate node would be a root node of multiple child nodes), and
control a data flow of a result of the reduction operation within the first tree structure, according to a first target height received from the child nodes in the first tree structure (see column 9, lines 43-59, column 10, lines 36-39, and column 14, lines 49-59, among others. Basically, reduction is performed by message passing up the tree. Messages are of the form shown in FIG.3. A header includes a selected maximum height/level, which indicates control of data flow. Such would be used to pass data up the tree to perform reduction. An intermediate node would include a comparator to “determine whether the height value corresponds to its level…”, which again is consistent with 112(f) interpretation).
Referring to claim 2, Douglas has taught the distributed processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the reduction operation comprises at least one of an arithmetic operation (column 19, lines 3-13), a statistical operation, a count operation, or a logical operation (column 9, line 10-13), according to data precision and a data type (all data has a type and precision and, thus, there characteristics are a basis for any operation).
Referring to claim 5, Douglas has taught the distributed processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of operation nodes is grouped into a plurality of second groups (from FIG.2A, a second group comprises leaf nodes that share node 20(2,0). Another second group would comprise leaf nodes that share node 20(2,1), which is not explicitly shown, but implied by the multiple arrows of root node 20(M,0)), and wherein the distributed processing apparatus further comprises: a plurality of second tree nodes configured to connect operation nodes, the plurality of operation nodes, belonging to each of the plurality of second groups (second tree nodes would be 20(2,0), 20(2,1), etc., which connect the lead nodes of the respective second group).
Referring to claim 6, Douglas has taught the distributed processing apparatus of claim 5, wherein the plurality of first groups are configured based on grouping the plurality of operation nodes in a first direction (under the alternative rejection of claim 1, the first groups include leaf nodes and nodes 20(1,X), which means the grouping is vertical (it spans multiple levels)), and the plurality of second groups are configured based on grouping the plurality of operation nodes in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction (the second groups include leaf nodes in a horizontal direction that is orthogonal to the vertical direction).
Referring to claim 8, Douglas has taught the distributed processing apparatus of claim 5, further comprising: a plurality of second additional nodes configured to connect root nodes of the plurality of second groups, wherein, in a second tree structure comprising the plurality of second additional nodes and the plurality of second tree nodes, a second intermediate node is configured to: perform a reduction operation on data received from child nodes in the second tree structure, and control a data flow of a result of the reduction operation within the second tree structure, according to a second target height received from the child nodes in the second tree structure (from FIG.2A, there may as many levels as desired. Each level connects root nodes of all levels below it. And, each level takes part in the reduction).
Referring to claim 9, Douglas has taught the distributed processing apparatus of claim 8, wherein the first tree structure and the second tree structure have independent connection structures (as described, the first tree structure could comprise lower levels and the second tree structure could comprise higher levels. Each would thus have at least some connections that are not in the other).
Claim 10 is partly rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1. Douglas has also taught wherein the first tree structure comprises:
a plurality of tree nodes configured to connect a plurality of nodes belonging to each of a plurality of groups (tree node 20(2,0) connects leaf nodes a group of leaf nodes 0-3 to a group of leaf nodes 4-7, and so on. Tree node 20(2,1), not shown, would similar connect additional groups of leaf nodes. All nodes in levels 0-2 make up a first tree structure), in which a plurality of operation nodes of the distributed processing apparatus is grouped, in a second tree structure (leaf nodes 0 to 3 are grouped in a second tree structure that additionally includes node 20(1,0)); and additional nodes configured to connect root nodes among the plurality of tree nodes in a third tree structure (another node at level 3, e.g. node 20(3,0) (not shown) would connect the level 2 root nodes, thereby forming a third tree structure comprising levels 0-3).
Referring to claim 11, Douglas has taught the distributed processing method of claim 10, wherein the controlling of the data flow of the result of the reduction operation within the first tree structure comprises transmitting the result of the reduction operation to one of the plurality of child nodes or a parent node, based on the target height (again, as described above, the reduction can continue all the way up to the top of the tree (at node 20(M,0)). Thus, when the target height is the top, a result of the reduction will be passed to a parent node until reduction proceeds at the top).
Referring to claim 12, Douglas has taught the distributed processing method of claim 10, wherein the receiving of the pieces of data from each of the plurality of child nodes comprises receiving an operation result of each of the plurality of child nodes and the target height (again, see the citations/explanations above. Reduction results are sent up the tree in message packets (FIG.3), which include a header having a target height).
Claim 13 is mostly rejected for similar reasoning as claim 10. Douglas has further taught a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method of a distributed processing apparatus comprising the claimed steps (the examiner notes that program instructions (column 5, line 56, to column 6, line 7) cause all functions to be performed in a computing environment. And such program instructions must be stored on a medium for retrieval).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas in view of the examiner’s taking of Official Notice.
Referring to claim 7, Douglas has taught the distributed processing apparatus of claim 5, but has not taught wherein each of the plurality of operation nodes is configured to transmit data to the plurality of first tree nodes through a 2-to-1 connection switch. However, Official Notice is taken that such a switch and its use in time-multiplexing was well-known in the art before applicant’s invention. A 2-to-1 switch takes in two inputs and selects one of the inputs for output onto a single bus. Thus, multiple inputs could share a transmission bus, which could lead to a reduction in wiring. As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Douglas such that each of the plurality of operation nodes is configured to transmit data to the plurality of first tree nodes through a 2-to-1 connection switch. In the combination, multiple leaf nodes when sending data to the parent node, would sent their inputs to one of multiple 2-to-1 switches, which would be controlled to allow the parent node to receive a single input at a time on one or more shared buses.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable over the prior art if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chen (US 2011/0173413) has taught a global tree network that supports global broadcast (down-tee) and global reduce (up-tree) operations.
Alverson (US 2022/0191128) has taught reduction operations where each node keeps a wait count of expected communications. When the wait count is reached in a node, reduction in that node is complete, and a partial result may be sent up the tree for further reduction.
Bloch (US 2017/0063613) has taught an aggregation protocol using a SHArP tree.
Archer (US 2015/0193270) has taught a tree that performs reduce operations and creating a plurality of hardware acceleration groups.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David J. Huisman whose telephone number is 571-272-4168. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5:30 pm.
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.
/David J. Huisman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183
Prosecution Insights