FLEX LOGIX EXHIBIT 1058
`Flex Logix Technologies v. Venkat Konda
`IPR2020-00260
`
`Page 1 of 37
`
`

`

`0/7709 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`16/202,067
`
`Examiner
`MY TRANG TON
`
`Applicant(s)
`Konda, Venkat
`
`Art Unit
`3992
`
`AIA (FITF) Status
`No
`
`- The MAILING DA TE 0/ this communication appears on the co ver sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions oftime may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date ofthis communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date ofthis communication, even iftimely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1)[:] Responsive to communication(s) filed on _
`CI A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`2a)C] This action is FINAL.
`2b)
`This action is non-final.
`
`3)C] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4):] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expade Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 0.6. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)
`Claim(s)
`
`1-2,4,7,11,16,22,24,28,33,36,39,43 and 49-50 is/are pending in the application.
`
`
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) 1-2,4,7,11,16,22,24,28,33,36,39,43 and 49-50 is/are rejected.
`
`Claim(s) _ is/are objected to.
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`Claim(s)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable. you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`httpmMmmsptmsMpatentsflnLevantszpphflndeusp or send an inquiry to EEHIecdhackQusptnm
`
`Application Papers
`10). The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11). The drawing(s) filed on 11/27/18 is/are: a)[:] accepted or b). objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85( ).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12):] Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119( )-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)l:l All
`
`b)D Some“
`
`c)l:l None of the:
`
`1E] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2E] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3E] Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2( )).
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/OBa and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date 12/4/2018_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) [3 Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other'
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20200813
`
`Page 2 of 37
`
`Page 2 of 37
`
`

`

`Application Number: 16/202,067
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`ACKNOW LEDGEM ENTS
`
`This Office Action addresses US Application No. 16/202,067 (hereinafter
`
`the “instant application"), which is a reissue application of U.S Application
`
`No. 12/601,275 (hereinafter “the ‘275 Application”), entitled “VLSI LAYOUTS
`
`OF FULLY CONNECTED GENERALIZED NETWORKS”, Which issued as U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,269,523 (hereinafter “the ’523 Patent”).
`
`Based upon a review of the instant application, the actual filing date of
`
`the instant application is November 27, 2018.
`
`For reissue applications filedm September 16, 2012, all references to
`
`35 U.S.C.§ 251 and 37 CFR§§ 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules
`
`in efiect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-
`
`AIA” provisions.
`
`For reissue applications filed on or (1 er September 16, 2012, all
`
`references to 35 U.S.C. § 251 and 37 CFR§§ 1.172, 1.175, and 3. 73 are to the
`
`current provisions.
`
`BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE PROCEEDING
`
`Reissue 7 Non-Final Ofice Action
`
`Part of PaperNo. 20200813
`
`Page 3 of 37
`
`Page 3 of 37
`
`

`

`Application Number: 16/202,067
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 3
`
`Non Broadening: The instant application is file after two years of issue of the
`
`‘523 Patent. Because the instant reissue application was filed after two years
`
`broadening of the original claims is not allowed. See MPEP § 1412. 03.
`
`Patent Term: Based upon and updated review of the file re cord the Examiner
`
`
`finds that the Patent term has not expired. In addition the Examiner finds that
`
`the 3.5 year maintenance fee is paid. The Examiner also finds that the 7.5
`
`year maintenance fee has not been paid. The maintenance fee for the ‘523
`
`Patent along with surcharge under 37 C.F.R. §1.20(h) is required. The last day
`
`to my maintenance fee is September 182 2020.
`
`Litigation: Base upon an Examiner review of the file itself the Examiner finds
`
`that the ‘523 Patent is involved in litigation:
`
`0
`
`0
`
`3: 18CV7581 KONDA V. FLEX LOGIX (OPEN)
`
`5:18CV7581 KONDA V. FLEX LOGIX (CLOSED)
`
`Concurrent Proceedings: Based upon Applicant’s statements as set forth in the
`
`instant application and after the Examiner's independent review of the reissued
`
`patent itself and its prosecution history and a review of the USPTO PTAB
`
`processing system the Examiner cannot locate any concurrent proceedings
`
`involving the ‘523 Patent. The Examiner cannot locate any previous
`
`re examinations, supplemental examinations.
`
`PRIORITY
`
`Reissue 7 Non-Final Ofice Action
`
`Part of PaperNo. 20200813
`
`Page 4 of 37
`
`Page 4 of 37
`
`

`

`Application Number: 16/202,067
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 4
`
`Based upon a review of the instant application and ‘523 Patent, the
`
`Examiner finds that the ‘523 Patent claims priority to Provisional Application
`
`No. 60/940,394 which was filed on May 25, 2007.
`
`Based upon a review of the instant application and ‘523 Patent itself, the
`
`Examiner finds that the ‘523 Patent does not claim foreign priority.
`
`The reissued patent issued with claims l—48 (“Patented Claims”).
`
`AMENDMENT
`
`Applicant filed a preliminary amendment on November 27, 2O 18
`
`(hereinafter “the November 2018 Amendment") along with the filing of the
`
`present reissue application. However, the November 2018 Amendment has
`
`been request disregard by the Applicant on September 23, 2019 and substitute
`
`by a second preliminary amendment on the same day (hereinafter “the
`
`September 2019 Amendment”).
`
`In the September 2019 Amendment, original
`
`claims 1, 2, 4, 7, ll, 16, 22, 24, 28, 33, 36, 39, 43 were amended; original
`
`claims 3, 5—6, 8—10, 12—15, 17—21, 23, 25—27, 29—32, 34—35, 37—38, 40—42, 44—
`
`48 were canceled; and claims 49—50 are newly added.
`
`This action is in response to the September 2019 Amendment.
`
`STATUS OF CLAIMS
`
`Reissue 7 Non-Final Ofice Action
`
`Part of PaperNo. 20200813
`
`Page 5 of 37
`
`Page 5 of 37
`
`

`

`Application Number: 16/202,067
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 5
`
`The status of the claims in this proceeding is as follows:
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 16, 22, 24, 28, 33, 36, 39 and 43 are amended.
`
`Claims 3, 5—6, 8— 10, 12—15, 17—21, 23, 25—27, 29—32, 34—35, 37—38, 40—
`
`42, 44—48 are canceled.
`
`Claims 49—50 are newly added.
`
`Therefore, claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 16, 22, 24, 28, 33, 36, 39, 43 and 49—50
`
`are currently pendingin the instant application. Of these, claims 1, 49 and 50
`
`are independent claims.
`
`CLAIM OBJECTIONS
`
`The claim amendments in the September 2019 Amendment are improper
`
`because they do not have proper markings under 37 C.F.R. §1.173(d) and (g).
`
`Specifically, all claim amendments must be made with respect to the original
`
`patent, i.e., the ‘523 Patent. Since each of claims 49 and 50 are added with
`
`
`respect to the ‘523 Patent, they should be completely underlined, both claim
`
`numbers and text. However, each of new claims 49 and 50 are not presented
`
`with underlining throughout the claim numbers. See MPEP §1453 V. C.
`
`Presentation of New Claims.
`
`Moreover, claims 49 and 50 are also objected to because the Applicant
`
`does not comply with MPEP § 1453 (V) (D). Claims 49 and 50 are new.
`
`Applicant has not pointed out what are new compared to the original patented
`
`claims. Although the reissue applicant identifies wherein the support for the
`
`Reissue 7 Non-Final Ofice Action
`
`Part of PaperNo. 20200813
`
`Page 6 of 37
`
`Page 6 of 37
`
`

`

`Application Number: 16/202,067
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 6
`
`new claims are located, they do not contain a proper explanation of support for
`
`the new claims. For example, the reissue applicant me rely states “... More
`
`particularly, support for the amendment to claim 49, 50 is found at least at
`
`FIGS 1A — 1J, lK, 1K1, IL, 1L1 and col. 8:42 — 25:2.” Applicant has not identified
`
`any changes from the original patent claims to arrive at the new claims nor any
`
`explanation for this unidentified claim changes. Applicant is thus required in
`
`response to this Office action to provide an explanation of support for the
`
`changes from the patent claims made to arrive at the newly added claims (i.e.,
`
`what has been deleted from the patent claims and what is added with respect
`
`to the patent claims to arrive at the newly added claims) and further provide an
`
`explanation of support in the specification of the '523 Patent for those changes.
`
`See MPEP §1453(V). Although the presentation of the new claim need not
`
`contain any indication of what is new from the original patented claims,
`
`applicant must point out what is new in the "Remarks" portion of the
`
`amendment along with the support for the change. See MPEP §1453(V) (D).
`
`A proper amendment is required in response to this Office action. While
`
`such objection is held in abeyance herein for purpose of this Office action only.
`
`The Examiner notes all further communications from the reissue applicant will
`
`be held to strict compliance with 37 CFR § 1.173.
`
`Reissue 7 Non-Final Ofice Action
`
`Part of PaperNo. 20200813
`
`Page 7 of 37
`
`Page 7 of 37
`
`

`

`Application Number: 16/202,067
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 7
`
`DEFECTIVE OATH / DECLARATION
`
`Reissue 7 Non-Final Ofice Action
`
`Part of PaperNo. 20200813
`
`Page 8 of 37
`
`Page 8 of 37
`
`

`

`Application Number: 16/202,067
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 8
`
`The reissue oath/declaration filed on September 23, 2019 (hereinafter
`
`“September 2019 Declaration”) with this application is defective (see 37
`
`CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414) because:
`
`It is not sufficient for an
`
`oath / declaration to merely state “... the scope of the original claim 1 is narrowed
`
`by incorporated limitations of claim 3 into original claim 1. Newly added
`
`independent claims 49 and 50 also do not broaden the scope of original claims”.
`
`Rather, the oath / de ciaration must specifically identify an error to the specific
`
`claim(s) and the sp_ecific claim language wherein lies the error, ifnew claim(s) is
`
`presented, its difference from the claims 1—48 of the ‘523 Patent must be
`
`pointed out in the supplemental oath / declaration. See 37 CFR g 1.175 and
`
`MPEP § 1414. However, Examiners find herein that Applicant has not
`
`identified a single word, phrase, or expression in the claims and how it renders
`
`the claims wholly or partly inoperative or invalid. While Examiner notes that
`
`Applicant has provided “the scope ofthe original claim 1 is narrowed by
`
`incorporated limitations of claim 3 into original claim 1. Newly added
`
`independent claims 49 and 50 also do not broaden the scope of original claims”,
`
`Examiner find that the language required by 37 CFR § 1.175 and MPEP § 1414
`
`is missing. For example, the difference of the newly added claims (i.e., claims
`
`49—50) from the original claims 1—48 must be pointed out.
`
`REJECTION BASED ON DEFECTIVE OATH/ DECLARATION
`
`Reissue 7 Non-Final Ofice Action
`
`Part of PaperNo. 20200813
`
`Page 9 of 37
`
`Page 9 of 37
`
`

`

`Application Number: 16/202,067
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 9
`
`The followingis a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre —AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. §251 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made
`
`in this Office action:
`
`(a) IN GENERAL.—Whe never any patentis, through error, deemed wholly or partly
`inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by re ason of
`the pate ntee claiming more or less than he had right to claim in the patent, the Director
`shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law,
`reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, andin accordance
`with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original
`patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for re issue.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 16, 22, 24, 28, 33, 36, 39, 43 and 49—50 are
`
`rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`251. See 37 C.F‘.R. § 1.175. The nature of the defect in the declarationsis set
`
`forth in the discussion above.
`
`APPLICATION DATA SHEET (ADS)
`
`This application is objected to under 37 CFR 1.76 as the Application
`
`Data Sheet filed July 4, 2019 (“July 2019 ADS”) includes underlined data
`
`(page 3: under domestic benefit section, last line: continuation of
`
`PCT/USOS/064605; and page 5: underlf the Applicant is an Organization:
`
`Ve nkat Konda) that appears to represent a correction but the correction was
`
`not initialed and the correction should be strike through (not underlined as
`
`shown in the July 2019 ADS). The correctedADS should comply with 37 CFR §
`
`1.76(c) (2), which requires that any changes to an ADS be identified with
`
`markings (underline for additionz strike through for deletion). Applicant can
`
`Reissue 7 Non-Final Ofice Action
`
`Part of PaperNo. 20200813
`
`Page 10 of 37
`
`Page 10 of 37
`
`

`

`Application Number: 16/202,067
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 10
`
`also use the Corrected We b—based ADS. See the Quick- Start Guidafor Corrmtcd
`
`Wéebbased 141$].
`
`CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`
`During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the
`
`specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01
`
`and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Undera broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain
`
`meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistentwith the specification. See MPEP
`
`2111.01(l).
`
`It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from
`
`the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written
`
`description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader
`
`than the embodiment. See MPEP 2111.01(II). Therefore, unless one of the
`
`exceptions applies below, Examiners will interpret the limitations of the
`
`examined claims using the broadest reasonable interpretation.
`
`A. Lexicography
`
`After careful review of the original specification, the prosecution history,
`
`and unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiners, the Examiners find
`
`that they are unable to locate any lexicographic definitions (either express or
`
`implied) with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision with regard to
`
`1 fitting: 2/,I’wme u 5 pro .gov,’si $85ch a‘fa uE‘l/fi l aside to men tstor rec: had «W F: EJADS-QSG .31: d‘f
`
`Reissue 7 Non-Final Ofice Action
`
`Part of PaperNo. 20200813
`
`Page 11 0f37
`
`Page 11 of 37
`
`

`

`Application Number: 16/202,067
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 11
`
`pending and examined claims. Because the Examiners are unable to locate
`
`any lexicographic definitions with the required clarity, delibe rateness, and
`
`precision, the Examine rs conclude that Applicant is not his own lexicographer
`
`for the examined claims. See MPEP §2111.01 IV.
`
`B. 35 U.S.C. § 1 12, 6TH Paragraph
`
`The Examiners further find that because the examined claims re cite
`
`neither“stepfor” nor “means for,” the examined claims fail Prong (A) as set
`
`forth in MPEP §2181 1. Because all examined claims fail Prong (A) as set forth
`
`in MPEP §2181 1., the Examiners conclude that all examined claims do n_ot
`
`invoke 35 U.S.C. §112, 6th paragraph. See also Exparte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d
`
`1207, 1215—16 (B.P.A.I. 2008)[precedential)(where the Board did not invoke 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112 6th paragraph because “means for” was not recited and because
`
`applicant still possessed an opportunity to amend the claims).
`
`Because of the Examiners’ findings above that Applicant is not his own
`
`lexicographer and the examined claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §ll2, 6th
`
`paragraph, the examined claims will be given the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation consistent with the specification since patentee has an
`
`opportunity to amend claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re
`
`Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Undera broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless
`
`such meaningis inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 21 1 101(1).
`
`It is
`
`further noted it is improper to import claimlimitations from the specification,
`
`Reissue 7 Non-Final Ofice Action
`
`Part of PaperNo. 20200813
`
`Page 12 of 37
`
`Page 12 of 37
`
`

`

`Application Number: 16/202,067
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 12
`
`i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be
`
`re ad into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.
`
`See MPEP 2111.01(11).
`
`OBJECTION TO THE DRAWINGS
`
`The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR §1.83(a). The drawings must
`
`show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. There fore, the “...
`
`and said plurality of switches comprising at least one switch of size (1 Z
`
`3...” as recited in claim 49, line 10, must be shown or the feature canceled
`
`from the claim. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. §1. 173
`
`and an explanation of the changes therein are required in reply to the Office
`
`action to avoid abandonment of the application. No new matter should be
`
`entered.
`
`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 REJECTIONS - 35 U.S.C. §1 12 — 1ST PARAGRAPH
`
`The followingis a quotation of pre —AIA 35 U.S.C. §112(1St i):
`
`The specification shall contain a written description of the
`
`invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in
`
`such filll, 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.
`
`Reissue 7 Non-Final Ofice Action
`
`Part of PaperNo. 20200813
`
`Page 13 of37
`
`Page 13 of 37
`
`

`

`Application Number: 16/202,067
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 13
`
`Written De scription [ New Matter Rejection of Claim 49
`
`Claim 49 is rejected under pre —AlA 35 U.S.C. §112(1st 1i) 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 pre —AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed,
`
`had possession of the claimed invention.
`
`In the September 2019 Amendment, claim 49 was added to include the
`
`limitation “each stage of said plurality of stages y comprising a plurality of
`
`switches of size dxd, where d 2 2 M said plurality of switches comprising
`
`
`at least one switch of size d 2 3...”
`
`Nevertheless, as shown in the specification, the ‘523 Patent only
`
`disclosedfl (col. 3, lines 54, 61 and original claims 8—10, 12—14, 25—27, 29—
`
`31), and d=_4 (original claims 33—38 and 40—46). The specification of the ‘523
`
`Patent doe s not discuss any details of the plurality of switches comprising a_t
`
`least one switch of size d 2 3 as re cited in new claim 49.
`
`The general rule for written description is that the written description
`
`must be sufficient to inform a skilled artisan that Applicant was in possession
`
`of the claimed invention as a whole at the time the application was filed.
`
`Possession may be shown by a clear depiction of the invention in detailed
`
`drawings or in structural which permit a person skilled in the art to Clearly
`
`recognize that applicant had possession of the claimed invention. To comply
`
`with the written description requirement, each claim limitation must be
`
`Reissue 7 Non-Final Ofice Action
`
`Part of PaperNo. 20200813
`
`Page 14 of 37
`
`Page 14 of 37
`
`

`

`Application Number: 16/202,067
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 14
`
`expressly, implicitly, or inherently supported in the originally filed disclosure.
`
`.
`
`However, Examiners find that the ‘523 Patent, both the drawings and the
`
`specification fail to provide a sufficiently detailed depiction of the structures
`
`that implement “... and said plurality of switches comprising at least one
`
`
`switch of size d 2 3”. Thus, this limitation constitutes new matter.
`
`CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 U.S.C. § 251
`
`The followingis a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §251 (in part):
`
`Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly
`inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defe cfive specification or drawing, or by
`reason of the pate ntee claimingmore or less than he had a right to claimin the
`patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of
`the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosedin the
`original patent, andin accordance with a new and amended application, for the
`unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be
`introducedinto the application for reissue
`
`1/ Claim 49 and this application as a whole are rejected under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 251 as containing new matter as discussed above, certain portions of
`
`claim 49 is not supported by the specification. The new matter added in this
`
`reissue is discussed above in the rejections under pre —AIA 35 U.S.C. §112 (1st
`
`ii)-
`
`Because 35 U.S.C. § 251 prohibits the introduction of new matter in a
`
`reissue application, the application is defective and pending claims will be
`
`rejected so long as new matter is present in the application. See MPEP §
`
`1411.02.
`
`Reissue 7 Non-Final Ofice Action
`
`Part of PaperNo. 20200813
`
`Page 15 of37
`
`Page 15 of 37
`
`

`

`Application Number: 16/202,067
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 15
`
`2/ Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 16, 22, 24, 28, 33, 36, 39, 43 and 49—50 and
`
`this application as a whole are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being
`
`broadened in a reissue application filed outside the two year statutory period.
`
`Examiners find that “said all straight links are connecting from switches
`
`in each said sub-integrated Circuit block are connecting to switches in the same
`
`said sub-integrated circuit block; and said all cross links are connecting as
`
`either vertical or horizontal links between switches in two different said
`
`sub-integrated circuit blocks which are either placed vertically above or
`
`below, or placed horizontally to the left or to the right,
`
`each said plurality of sub-integrated circuit blocks comprising same
`
`number of said stages and said switches in each said stage, regardless of the
`
`size of said two-dimensional grid so that each said plurality of sub-integrated
`
`circuit block with its corresponding said stages and said switches in each stage
`
`is replicable in both vertical direction or horizontal direction of said two-
`
`dimensional grid” have been partially deleted from pending and examined
`
`claims 1 and 49—50 (compare patented claim 1]. These featureswere added to
`
`the patented claim 1 in: 1/ the April 2012 Amendment, 2/ the 2012
`
`Supplemental Response, 3/ discussed in 2012 Interview and 4/ we re explicitly
`
`argued by the Applicant to overcome the applied prior art “Accordingly
`
`applicant submit that the claims do corrwly with §102(b) and therefore request
`
`withdrawal of this rejection”. Thus, Examiners find that Applicant has through
`
`these amendments has drawn attention to “said all straight links are connecting
`
`Reissue 7 Non-Final Ofice Action
`
`Part of PaperNo. 20200813
`
`Page 16 of 37
`
`Page 16 of 37
`
`

`

`Application Number: 16/202,067
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 16
`
`from switches in each said sub—integrated circuit block are connecting to switches
`
`in the same said sub-integrated circuit block; and said all cross links are
`
`connecting as either vertical or horizontal links between switches in two difi‘erent
`
`said sub-integrated circuit blocks which are either placed vertically above or
`
`below, or placed horizontally to the left or to the right, each said plurality of sub-
`
`integrated circuit blocks comprising same number of said stages and said
`
`switches in each, said stage, regardless of the size of said two-dimensional grid
`
`so that each said plurality ofsub-integrated circuit block with its corresponding
`
`said stages and said switches in each stage is replicable in both
`
`vertical direction or horizontal direction of said two—dimensional grid” in order to
`
`gain the allowance of claims 1 and 3—49 over a 102(b) rejection made in the
`
`‘27 5 Application of the ‘523 Patent.
`
`A claimis broader in scope than the original claims if it contains within
`
`its scope any conceivable product or process which would not have infringed
`
`the original patent. A claim is broadened ifit is broader in any one respect
`
`even though it may be narrower in other respects. That is, all claims in this
`
`reissue must be the same as or narrower than the issued claims, i.e.,
`
`Applicant can only add limitations to the claims, not take away.
`
`CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 112 — 2ND PARAGRAPH
`
`The followingis a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
`(b) CONCLUSI ON.—The spe cification 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.
`
`Reissue 7 Non-Final Ofice Action
`
`Part of PaperNo. 20200813
`
`Page 17 of 37
`
`Page 17 of 37
`
`

`

`Application Number: 16/202,067
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 17
`
`The followingis 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, 7, 11, 16, 22, 24, 28, 33, 36, 39, 43 and 49—50 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, it is unclear as to whether “a first sub—integrated
`
`circuit block” recitedin line 5, page 7 is additional limitation “a first sub—
`
`integrated circuit block” as previously cited in line 3, page 7.
`
`Claim 4 re cites the limitation ”the shortest cross middle links” in line 11,
`
`page 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
`
`Regarding claim 16, line 14, before “field programmable gate array”,
`
`delete “a” (second occurrence) because of duplicate.
`
`Claims 2, 7, 11, 22, 24, 28, 33, 36, 39, 43 are renderedindefinite by the
`
`deficiencies of claim 1.
`
`Regarding claim 49, it is unclear as to whether“a first sub—integrated
`
`circuit block” recitedin line 1, page 22 is additional limitation “a first sub—
`
`integrated circuit block” as previously cited in line 25, page 21. Furthermore,
`
`the limitation“ each stage of said plurality of stages y comprising a plurality of
`
`switches of Size d X (1, where d2 2, and said plurality of switches comprising
`
`Reissue 7 Non-Final Ofice Action
`
`Part of PaperNo. 20200813
`
`Page 18 of 37
`
`Page 18 of 37
`
`

`

`Application Number: 16/202,067
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 18
`
`
`at least one switch of size (1 2 3 ...” is misdescriptive of the present invention
`
`since such limitation is not seen as recited therein. While Examiners recognize
`
`that switches size of d=2 or d=4 as disclose in the specification and original
`
`claims, Examiners are unable to determine where additional of the plurality of
`
`switches to fulfill the limitation “$1 said plurality of switches comprising at
`
`least one switch of size M”. In order to avoid any confusion, Applicant is
`
`required to particularly point out how this limitation reads on the circuit
`
`arrangement of the drawings.
`
`Regarding claim 50, it is unclear as to whether“a first sub—integrated
`
`circuit block” recited in line 25, page 23 is additional limitation “a first sub—
`
`integrated circuit block” as previously cited in lines 23 —24 , page 23.
`
`OBJECTIONS TO THE SPECIFICATION
`
`The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent
`
`basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75[d)( 1) and MPEP
`
`§ 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: As explained in the
`
`rejection under 35 USC 112, first paragraph above, the claims de scribe subject
`
`matter that is not disclosed in the specification.
`
`CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 102
`
`In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject
`
`to AIA 35 USC. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre —AIA 35 USC. 102 and 103)
`
`Reissue 7 Non-Final Ofice Action
`
`Part of PaperNo. 20200813
`
`Page 19 of 37
`
`Page 19 of 37
`
`

`

`Application Number: 16/202,067
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 19
`
`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.
`
`The followingis a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre —AIA 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 —
`
`(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a
`foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year
`prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 16, 22 and 50 are rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)
`
`as being anticipated by Wong (US Patent No. 6,940,308 cited in PTOL 1449).
`
`Regarding claim 1: An integrated circuit comprising a plurality of
`
`sub-integrated circuit blocks and a multi-stage network (the Abstract, FPGA
`
`interconnection network architecture, col. 4, lines 12—13; “ASIC” (Application
`
`Specificlntegrated Circuit),col. 13, lines 4—5), and
`
`each sub-integrated circuit block of said plurality of sub-integrated
`
`circuit blocks (sub—interconnection networks; multiple processors; peripheral
`
`blocks of an integrated Circuit) comprising a plurality of inlet links and a
`
`plurality of outlet links (an input—output pin pair of a logic cell forms the
`
`leaves of the Benes interconnect network)(col. 13, lines 25—26); and
`
`Reissue 7 Non-Final Ofice Action
`
`Part of PaperNo. 20200813
`
`Page 20 of 37
`
`Page 20 of 37
`
`

`

`Application Number: 16/202,067
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 20
`
`said multi-stage network comprising a plurality of stages y
`
`corresponding to each sub-integrated circuit block of said plurality of sub-
`
`integrated circuit blocks, starting from stage 1 to stage y, where yZl
`
`(hierarchical levels, col. 2, lines 7—12); and
`
`each stage of said plurality of stages y comprising a plurality of
`
`switches of size d x d (2 X 2 switches),where d 2 2 (col. 5, lines 26—33) and
`
`each switch of said plurality of switches of size (1 x d (8 X 8 Benes network
`
`with 2 X 2 switches) having (1 inlet links and d outlet links (2X2 switches
`
`having input terminals and output terminals, col. 4, lines 23—30); and
`
`said plurality of outlet links of each sub-integrated circuit block of
`
`said plurality of sub-integrated circuit blocks are directly connected to
`
`said plurality of inlet links of said plurality of switches of size (1 x d of its
`
`corresponding said stage 1 of said plurality of stagesy (the plurality of
`
`output links of cell 81 are directly connected to the plurality of input links of
`
`the plurality of switches 82, see Fig. 13A), and said plurality of inlet links of
`
`each sub-integrated circuit