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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-7, drawn to interconnection details, classified in G06F 13/00.
II. Claims 8-20, drawn to distributes applications, classified in H04L 67/10.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons. Inventions I and II are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination I has separate utility such as expanding to a three-dimensional (3D) structure, separate from reduce-scatter. Subcombination II has separate utility such as reduce-scatter separate from expanding to a 3D structure. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where a subcombination is elected and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). If any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because the aforementioned inventions are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because at least the following reason(s) apply: separate classification thereof, supra; each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort; or a different field of search, e.g., searching different classes/ subclasses, supra, or employing different search queries are required.
To be complete, a reply to this requirement must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the other invention(s).
During a telephone conversation with Ebenasar Thomas on June4, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute invention I, claims 8-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 1-7 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 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.
Claims 8, 10, 13, 15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210320869 (Bourai) in view WO 8702157 (Maxemchuk) of further in view of WO 2026056829 (Wang).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Bourai teaches or suggests a system comprising: a plurality of nodes arranged in rows and columns in a mesh-based network; and a plurality of links configured to connect the plurality of nodes, the plurality of links comprising first links in a first direction and second links in a second direction, the first direction being one of a row direction or a column direction and the second direction being the other of the row direction or a column direction (fig. 1),
wherein at least one of the first links and the second links has a first bandwidth different than a second bandwidth of third links, among the plurality of links (¶ 19 ).
Bourai does not expressly use the terms “rows,”“columns,” and “nodes” but Maxemchuk teaches or suggests a system comprising: a plurality of nodes arranged in rows and columns in a mesh-based network; and a plurality of links configured to connect the plurality of nodes, the plurality of links comprising first links in a first direction and second links in a second direction, the first direction being one of a row direction or a column direction and the second direction being the other of the row direction or a column direction (abs.). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Bourai’s system and Maxemchuk’s terms in order to explain in the system with descriptive terminology.
Bourai does not expressly disclose but Wang teaches or suggests wherein each of the plurality of nodes is configured to: receive a data chunk, perform reduce-scatter operation of progressively combining the received data chunk with its own data and progressively transmitting the combined data to a root node of the mesh-based network through a number of adjacent nodes, perform an all-gather operation of distributing first data combined in the root node to a number of adjacent nodes, and complete collective communication by receiving second data distributed from the root node (fig. 8 description). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Bourai’s system, Maxemchuk’s terms, and Wang’s operations to perform large-scale operations.
Regarding claims 10 and 17, Bourai teaches or suggests the root node is located at cross points of the first links and the second links (fig. 1). See also Maxemchuk (abs.).
Regarding claim 13, Bourai teaches or suggests at least one of the first links and the second links has a first bandwidth different than a second bandwidth of third links, among the plurality of links (¶ 19 ).
Regarding claim 20, Bourai teaches or suggests the first links are arranged between adjacent nodes connected in the row direction or the column direction of the mesh-based network (fig. 1). See also Maxemchuk (abs.).
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210320869 (Bourai) in view WO 8702157 (Maxemchuk) of further in view of WO 2026056829 (Wang) and US 20250355715 (Pope).
Bourai does not expressly disclose but Pope teaches or suggests each of the plurality of nodes is further configured to simultaneously perform the reduce-scatter operation and the all-gather operation for different data chunks.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Bourai’s system, Maxemchuk’s terms, Wang’s operations, and Pope’s timing to speed operations.
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210320869 (Bourai) in view WO 8702157 (Maxemchuk) of further in view of WO 2026056829 (Wang) and WO 0215515 (Shannon).
Bourai does not expressly disclose but Shannon teaches or suggests each of the plurality of nodes is further configured to partition the data chunk into logical chunks and transmit the logical chunks to each physical link (description of adapter.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Bourai’s system, Maxemchuk’s terms, Wang’s operations, and Shannon’s partition to ensure overall speed and performance.
Claims 12, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210320869 (Bourai) in view WO 8702157 (Maxemchuk) of further in view of WO 2026056829 (Wang) and EP 3328003 (Kubosumi).
Regarding claim 12, Bourai does not expressly disclose but Kubosumi teaches or suggests each of the plurality of nodes is further configured to simultaneously transmit two physical chunks to different adjacent nodes (description of fig.7).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Bourai’s system, Maxemchuk’s terms, Wang’s operations, and Kubosumi’s timing to speed operations.
Regarding claims 12 and 14, Bourai does not expressly disclose but Kubosumi teaches or suggests the plurality of nodes is further configured to transmit the data chunk using all of the plurality of links as data transmission paths (description of fig.7).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Bourai’s system, Maxemchuk’s terms, Wang’s operations, and Kubosumi’s inclusion to speed operations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Other Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the instant disclosure. For example, in US 20190044842 first and second communication are collective communication in which each of the information processing apparatuses communicates with others.
Conclusion
Any response to this Office action containing amended or newly presented claims should specifically point out support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 (“Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lance Leonard Barry whose telephone number is (571) 272-5856. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730-1630.
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 email the Examiner.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ario Etienne can be reached on 571-272-4001. 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.
/LANCE LEONARD BARRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights