DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed August 3, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-32 remain pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3, 11, 19, and 27 are ejected 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.
Claims 3, 11, 19, and 27 recite, using claim 3 for example language, “wherein the selected fraction is selected to align cache usage…”. However, this is the first recitation of “the selected fraction” in either the instant claims or their respective parent claims, leading to an antecedent basis issue, as it is unclear what “the selected fraction” refers to. It is also unclear if this is meant to refer to a specific subset of elements of the array or refer to the fraction of the apportionment (i.e. how many of the elements are apportioned to the first subset and how many of the elements are apportioned to the second subset). As the context of the claim appears to be adjusting the fraction of the array apportioned for the two cache policies, examiner suggests reciting “wherein a size of the fractional apportionment is selected to align cache usage…”, as this addresses the antecedent basis issue and also more clearly establishes that “the selected fraction” refers to the fraction used in apportioning the array elements.
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.
Claims 6, 8, 14, 16, 22, 24, 30, 32 are 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.
Claims 6, 14, 22, 30 recite “wherein the one or more indications are associated with a source code statement that declares the array”. The independent claims have been amended to recite “a single indication of the one or more indications is associated with a declaration of the array”. In the scenario where there is only one indication, then the single indication is associated with the declaration of the array is equivalent to the one indication associated with a statement that declares the array. As such, in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, there is a claim scope that fails to further narrow the parent claims from which the instant claims depend.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the one or more caching policies are associated with the array and cache guidance is applied to a plurality of the elements as a result of a single indication of the one or more caching policies”. Claim 1 has been amended to recite “one or more indications in source code of the software program of one or more memory locations corresponding to elements of an array… wherein the single indication fractionally apportions the elements of the array such that a first caching policy is applied to a first subset of the elements and a second caching policy… is applied to a second subset of the elements”. Claim 1 already recites where the memory locations correspond to elements of the array, and as the memory locations are apportioned to apply different caching policies, then claim 1 already recites a scope where the caching policies are associated with the array. Further, claim 1 already recites a narrower scope defining how the single indication apportions the elements corresponding to the memory locations such that different caching policies are applied, so claim 8’s limitations fail to further limit the subject matter of claim 1.
Claims 16, 24, 32 recite, using claim 16 for example language, “wherein the one or more memory locations are associated with an array data structure of the software program”. The independent claims have been amended to recite, using claim 9 for example language, “one or more indications in source code of the software program of one or more memory locations corresponding to elements of an array…”. The independent claims directly recite where the one or more memory locations correspond to elements of an array, where the context of the claims is compiling a software program to be compiled for applying caching policies. As such, claims 16, 24, and 32 fail to further narrow the independent claims on which they depend.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 31 are allowed.
Claims 3, 11, 19, and 27 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 1, 9, 17, and 25 recite, using claim 1 for example language, “wherein a single indication of the one or more indications is associated with a declaration of the array and governs accesses to all of the elements of the array collectively, and wherein the single indication fractionally apportions the elements of the array such a first caching policy is applied to a first subset of the elements and a second caching policy, different from the first caching policy, is applied a second subset of the elements.”
The claims have been amended to require that a single indication of the one or more indications be capable of two functions simultaneously: govern accesses to all of the elements of the array, and also to fractionally apportion the elements of the array. Examiner notes that the initial clause where the single indication is associated with a declaration of the array is broader and does not require that the single indication declares the array itself, only that it is associated with the declaration, and as such this would be identical to the subject matter of claim 6, which was rejected utilizing the rationale of Chen Fig. 6.
Upon a reconsideration of the art, examiner finds that Chen, Guirado, and Cabot fails to teach this feature, and also that Wang, previously relied upon to reject the subject matter of fractional apportionment in claim 2, fails to teach this feature. In the prior office action mailed March 2, 2026, Cabot was relied upon to utilize markers to delineate regions with different caching policies in claim 1, and Wang was relied upon to disclose registers utilized to indicate whether an LRR or LRU policy was utilized. However, in both Cabot and Wang, multiple indications are required to provide this apportionment (Cabot utilizes multiple source code statements to indicate the start/end of different caching policy regions, and Wang utilizes multiple registers to define the policy ranges). As such, the references fail to teach where a single indication provides the fractional apportionment. Further, neither Cabot nor Wang provide where the indications that provide the apportionment of caching policies also govern accesses to the elements collectively.
In a search of the art, no reference was found capable of rendering this feature obvious, leading to a determination that the independent claims are allowed.
The dependent claims indicated are allowed or would be allowable due to dependence on the independent claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ohsawa et al. (US 5,625,832) discloses declaring arrays and then allocating partial arrays for different purposes, but does not disclose where those allocations of the partial arrays occur in a single indication,
Kimmel et al. (US 2014/0181377), Gatson et al. (US 2017/0003984), Zhao et al. (US 2020/0042184), Hinds et al. (US 2021/0011638), Paduroiu (US 2021/0185142) disclose managing caching policies based on cache utilization/usage,
Hooker et al. (US 2016/0350227) discloses allocating storage elements in different cache areas based on a memory access type, but not where the allocation is based on a single indication in source code,
Vijayrao et al. (US 2017/0109279) discloses allocating cache lines on a proportional basis, but not based on cache policy,
McIlroy et al. (US 2020/0249877) discloses managing in line compression based on caching policies and cache utilization,
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are issued based on amended language, and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) are issued to dependent claims due to newly recited limitations in the independent claims. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON D HO whose telephone number is (469)295-9093. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-4:00 CT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Reginald Bragdon can be reached at (571)272-4204. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2139
/REGINALD G BRAGDON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2139
Prosecution Insights