DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 and 18-21 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 .
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. At this point in time, the examiner recommends --Storing Data to a General-Purpose Register Hierarchy based on Expected Frequency of Access--.
The 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.
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 1-16 and 18-21 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.
In claims 1, 9, and 16, applicant now claims that GPRs of the first plurality of GPRs share a design with GPRs of the second plurality of GPRs so that each GPR of the first plurality of GPRs and each GPR of the second plurality of GPRs consumes a same amount of power during a memory operation. The examiner has been unable to find support for this limitation. Applicant points to paragraphs 8, 13, and 26 for support (p.7 of applicant’s response submitted on April 15, 2026). Paragraph 26 does not discuss power and paragraphs 8 and 13 both appear to contradict what is claimed. Paragraph 8 states “[i]n some embodiments, the GPRs have a same design, and, as a result, accesses to a memory device that includes fewer GPRs consume less power on average, as compared to a memory device that includes more GPRs.” Paragraph 13 states “[h]owever, because GPRs 112-116 share a same design, a read or write operation using GPR 112-4 consumes more power on average than a similar read or write operation using GPR 116-1. More specifically, when a memory device is used as part of a read operation, a certain amount of power is consumed per GPR in the memory device. As a result, when the GPRs share a same design, a read operation using a memory device that includes fewer GPRs consumes less power on average, as compared to a memory device that includes more GPRs. A similar relationship is true during write operations.” Claims 3, 9, and 16 also set forth that accessing the first plurality consumes more power than accessing the second plurality. Thus, it is the examiner’s understanding that even though registers 112, 114, and 116 (FIG.1) individually have a same design, because they are packaged into different-sized memory devices, an access of a register in a larger memory device (e.g. FIG.1, 106) requires more power than an access of a register in a smaller memory device (e.g. FIG.1, 110). The examiner asserts that applicant’s claims include new matter.
Claim 14 now encompasses an indication of overallocation instead of deallocation. The examiner has been unable to find original support for transferring a variable to the second plurality of GPRs when GPRs of the second plurality are indicated as overallocated. Paragraph 26, which is one of the locations of support pointed to by applicant, does not support this transfer based on overallocation. Thus, the claim includes new matter. The examiner suspects the change from deallocation to overallocation may have been a typographical error.
All dependent claims 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 3, 9-16, and 18-21 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.
Claims 3, 9, and 16 are indefinite due to unclear contradictory limitations. Taking claim 9 as an example, the claim states both that (i) accessing one of the first plurality of GPRs consumes more power on average than accessing one of the second plurality of GPRs; and (ii) GPRs of the first plurality of GPRs share a design with GPRs of the second plurality of GPRs so that each GPR of the first plurality of GPRs and each GPR of the second plurality of GPRs consumes a same amount of power during a memory operation. Accessing a GPR is a memory operation and it is not clear how accessing a GPR of the first plurality can consume both (1) more power on average than accessing a GPR of the second plurality, and (2) the same amount of power as accessing a GPR of the second plurality. The different amounts of power consumption are mutually exclusive. As such, the scope of the claim is unclear. The claim will be interpreted as it has been presented. Claims 3 and 16 are similarly unclear.
Claims 10-15 and 18-21 are rejected due to their dependence on an indefinite claim.
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 3 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 include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically, claim 1 sets forth that each GPR of the first and second pluralities consumes the same amount of power during a memory operation. Then, dependent claim 3 contradicts this by setting forth that performing a memory operation on (accessing) a GPR of the first plurality consumes more power than accessing a GPR of the second plurality. If the GPR accesses consume different amounts of power in claim 3, then the accesses cannot consume the same amount of power as set forth in claim 1. Thus, claim 3 is essentially removing a limitation from claim 1, thereby making claim 3 an improper dependent. Applicant may cancel claim 3, amend it to be in proper dependent form, or present a sufficient showing that it complies with the statutory requirements.
Response to Arguments
On page 7 of applicant’s response, applicant argues that, due to amendments to claims 13-14, the claims do not include non-contingent limitations.
The examiner agrees.
The arguments related to the prior art rejections of the independent claims are persuasive as the prior art teaches registers having different power/energy requirements. As such the rejections have been withdrawn.
The arguments for the dependent claims are moot due to the withdrawal of the 102/103 rejections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 and 18-21 are allowed over the prior art. However, if the claims are amended to address 112 rejections, prior art rejections may be reintroduced.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 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