Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 17/695,533

MULTIPLE OPERATION FUSED ADDITION AND SUBTRACTION INSTRUCTION SET

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 15, 2022
Examiner
FAHERTY, COREY S
Art Unit
2183
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Intel Corporation
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
738 granted / 925 resolved
+24.8% vs TC avg
Minimal +4% lift
Without
With
+3.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
950
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.0%
-33.0% vs TC avg
§103
31.3%
-8.7% vs TC avg
§102
25.0%
-15.0% vs TC avg
§112
25.9%
-14.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 925 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to the reply filed on 07/01/2025. Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-18, and 20-23 are pending in the application and have been examined. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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 – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 5, 9-11, 16-18, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ronen (U.S. Publication 2002/0087955). Regarding claims 1, 10, and 17, Ronen discloses an apparatus, comprising: a processor to perform arithmetic operations that include at least addition operations and subtraction operations [Fig. 5]; and circuitry coupled to the processor to cause the processor to perform a fused addition and subtraction operation on three or more source inputs in response to a single processor instruction to produce one or more results [Fig. 6], wherein, in response to the single processor instruction, the circuitry is to cause the processor to: perform a first operation indicated by the single processor instruction to one of add or subtract respective first and second arguments of first and second input sources indicated by the single processor instruction to produce an intermediate value [Fig. 6; paragraph 0042; an add or subtract operation is performed to produce an intermediate result]; and perform a second operation indicated by the single processor instruction to one of add or subtract the intermediate value and a third argument of a third input source indicated by the single processor instruction to produce a result of the one or more results [Fig. 6; paragraph 0042; an add or subtract operation is performed to produce a result]. Regarding claims 5, 11, and 18, Ronen discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein, in response to the single processor instruction, the circuitry is further to cause the processor to: store the result of the second operation in a location indicated by the single processor instruction [paragraph 0042; the result is stored in a register specified by the destination operand]. Regarding claims 9, 16 and 23, Ronen discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein one or more of the three or more arguments is a scalar argument [paragraph 0025; the operands are retrieved from registers]. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 2, 7-8, 14-15, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ronen in view of Official Notice. Regarding claim 2, Ronen does not explicitly disclose that the instruction operates on vector data. However, the examiner takes official notice that the practice and benefits of operating on vector data were notoriously well known at the time of the effective filing date of the invention. Such benefits include particular processing advantages in fields such as video processing and machine learning and such operation would therefore have been obvious in the system of Ronen. Regarding claims 7-8, 14-15, and 21-22, Ronen does not explicitly disclose providing an overflow or underflow indication in response to the instruction. However, the examiner takes official notice that the practice and benefits of using such indications were notoriously well known at the time of the effective filing date of the invention. Such benefits are necessary in certain application environments and such operation in the system of Ronen would therefore have been obvious. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3, 6, 13, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Corey Faherty whose telephone number is (571)270-1319. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays between 7:30 and 4:00 ET, with every other Friday off. 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, 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. /COREY S FAHERTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 15, 2022
Application Filed
May 23, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jul 01, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 24, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12591430
DIGITAL COMPUTE HARDWARE FOR EFFICIENT ELEMENT-WISE AND CROSS-VECTOR MAXIMUM OPERATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12578992
Work Graph Scheduler Implementation
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12561141
Apparatus and Method for Improving Instruction Fusion, Fracture, and Binary Translation
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12561279
DETERMINISTIC MEMORY FOR TENSOR STREAMING PROCESSORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12554504
DEPENDENCY TRACKING AND CHAINING FOR VECTOR INSTRUCTIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+3.9%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 925 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month