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 .
NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION
This Office Action addresses U.S. Patent Application No. 19/186,802, entitled “INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD”, filed April 23, 2025, and claims foreign priority to JP 2024-076183, filed May 8, 2025.
Claims 1-6 are pending.
REQUIREMENT FOR INFORMATION UNDER 37 CFR 1.105
37 CFR 1.105(a)(1) states:
In the course of examining or treating a matter in a pending or abandoned application … the examiner or other Office employee may require the submission, from individuals identified under § 1.56(c), or any assignee, of such information as may be reasonably necessary to properly examine or treat the matter.
37 CFR 1.63(c) states:
A person may not execute an oath or declaration for an application unless that person has reviewed and understands the contents of the application, including the claims, and is aware of the duty to disclose to the Office all information known to the person to be material to patentability as defined in § 1.56.
(1) On April 23, 2025, the inventors acknowledged, under oath, a declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.63, indicating awareness of the duty to disclose to the Patent and Trademark Office all information known to be material to patentability of the subject matter claimed in this application, as “materiality” is defined in Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, § 1.56.
(2) On April 23, 2025, U.S. Patent Application No. 19/186,802 was filed with claims directed to an information processing apparatus that generates an operation configuration based on loop unrolling to reach a different degree of parallelism.
(3) On August 1, 2026, a search of the prior art revealed several patents and published patent applications by the inventor(s) and/or assignee relating to an information processing apparatus that generates an operation configuration based on loop unrolling to reach a different degree of parallelism. Some examples are:
JP 2022028147 A
U.S. Patent Application No. 20230376315
U.S. Patent Application No. 20230367570
U.S. Patent Application No. 20230145125
U.S. Patent Application No. 20170039044
U.S. Patent Application No. 20160328236
U.S. Patent No. 9182960
U.S. Patent Application No. 20150293768
Applicants have not yet satisfied the sworn duty to disclose all information known to be material to patentability of the subject matter claimed in this application.
Related applications or publications by the applicant (inventor(s) and/or assignee) suggest that applicant likely has access to information necessary to a more complete understanding of the invention and its context than has been disclosed. The record suggests that the details of such information may be relevant to the issue of patentability, and thus shows the need for information. See MPEP 704.11.
Applicant is required under 37 CFR 1.105 to provide the following information that the examiner has determined is reasonably necessary to the examination of this application.
The information is required to enter in the record the art suggested by the applicant as relevant to this examination, narrowed to the scope of technologies that use an information processing apparatus that generates an operation configuration based on loop unrolling to reach a different degree of parallelism.
(1) In response to this requirement, please provide copies of each publication which any of the inventors authored or co-authored and which describe the disclosed subject matter, narrowed to the scope of technologies that use an information processing apparatus that generates an operation configuration based on loop unrolling to reach a different degree of parallelism.
(2) In response to this requirement, please provide the title, citation and copy of each publication that is a source used for the description of the prior art in the disclosure, narrowed to technologies having an information processing apparatus that generates an operation configuration based on loop unrolling to reach a different degree of parallelism. For each publication, please provide a concise explanation of that publication’s contribution to the description of the prior art.
(3) In response to this requirement, please provide the title, citation and copy of each publication that any of the inventors relied upon to develop and/or draft the disclosed subject matter that describes the invention, particularly as to an information processing apparatus that generates an operation configuration based on loop unrolling to reach a different degree of parallelism. For each publication, please provide a concise explanation of the reliance placed on that publication in the development of the disclosed subject matter.
(4) In response to this requirement, please state the specific improvements of the subject matter in claims 1-6 over the disclosed prior art above, and any other references known to the inventor(s) and assignee and indicate the specific elements in the claimed subject matter that provide those improvements.
The timing fee and certification requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 are waived for those documents submitted in reply to the requirement. This waiver extends only to those documents within the scope of this requirement under 37 CFR 1.105 that are included in the applicant’s first complete communication responding to this requirement. Any supplemental replies subsequent to the first communication responding to this requirement and any information disclosures beyond the scope of this requirement under 37 CFR 1.105 are subject to the fee and certification requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 where appropriate.
The applicant is reminded that the reply to this requirement must be made with candor and good faith under 37 CFR 1.56. Where the applicant does not have or cannot readily obtain an item of required information, a statement that the item is unknown or cannot be readily obtained may be accepted as a complete reply to the requirement for that item.
This requirement is an attachment of the following Office action. A complete reply to the Office action must include a complete reply to this requirement. The time period for reply to this requirement coincides with the time period for reply to the enclosed Office action.
A reply, or a failure to reply, to a requirement for information under 37 CFR 1.105(a)(1) will be governed by §§ 1.135 and 1.136.
SPECIFICATION
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) The title of the invention is not descriptive of the claimed invention. For example, each of the claims require an information processing apparatus that generates an operation configuration based on loop unrolling to reach a different degree of parallelism.
A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
(2) The abstract of the disclosure is not in accordance with MPEP 608.01(b)(I)(C), which states, “The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided.” The Abstract has language identical to claim 1 and must be revised.
CLAIM OBJECTIONS
Claims 2-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In each of claims 2-5, there is a misplaced comma following the first occurrence of the word “to”. Those commas should be removed.
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.
An application may include one or more claim limitations that use the words “means for” and also 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) use(s) a generic placeholder.
Three Prong Analysis
To invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, a claimed phrase must meet the three prong analysis as set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I.
(A) Regarding Prong (A), the MPEP states:
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....
The claim limitations listed below do not use the language "means" or "step". However, each of these may be found to be a generic placeholder.
functional units
memory
processor
Thus, these limitations meet Prong (A) of the analysis.
(B) Regarding Prong (B), the MPEP states:
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"...
The claim limitations listed below may be modified by functional language, as shown.
functional units (not modified by functional language)
memory (not modified by functional language)
processor (“configured to”)
Any limitations which have been marked “not modified by functional language” do not meet Prong (B) and will not be further considered in this analysis. All other limitations meet Prong (B) of the analysis and must be considered in the following step.
(C) Regarding Prong (C), the MPEP states:
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
With regard to where the limitations may be found in the disclosure:
processor (note ¶ [0067], which describes part of the operation of processor 132)
Thus, the limitation listed above does not meet Prong (C) of the analysis and thus does not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 112, 2nd PARAGRAPH
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 1-6 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.
(1) In claims 1 and 6, it is unclear whether “for a reduction operation” modifies “functional units to be used” or “an output path” or “an operation result”.
(2) In claims 1 and 6, it is unclear whether the “operation configuration”, “operation result” and “predetermined operation” are all referring to do the same operation or different operations.
(3) In claims 1 and 6, it is unclear whether “sets of two pieces of data” includes the same “two pieces of data” mentioned earlier in the claim, or different data altogether.
(4) In claims 1 and 6, “generated initial operation configuration” (emphasis added) has no antecedent basis.
(5) In claims 1 and 6, “based on voltages” is unclear. Is this meant to have antecedent basis in the threshold voltages of claim 8?
(6) Claims 2-5 are rejected as being dependent upon rejected base claim 1.
PRIOR ART
Any rejections based on prior art (e.g., nonstatutory double patenting, 35 U.S.C. §102 or 35 U.S.C. §103) will be held in abeyance until the requirement under 37 CFR 1.105 has been satisfied.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to B. James Peikari at telephone number (571)272-4185. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5:30pm, 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, Alexander Kosowski can be reached at (571) 272-3744. 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.
/B. James Peikari/
Senior Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights