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 .
Claims 1, 3-4, 10, 12-14, 20, 27, and 31 are pending in this office action and presented for examination. Claims 1, 3-4, 10, and 13-14 are newly amended by the response received September 18, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 4, line 1, “responsive” should be “responsive to” for grammatical clarity.
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, 3-4, 10, 12-14, 20, 27, and 31 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “responsive to the detecting indicating that the first event is present in the first execute stage and the second event is not present in the second execute stage: preparing an event controller to handle the first event, wherein the preparing is performed during the executing of the second instruction and the third instruction in the second execute stage” in lines 18-23. However, the original disclosure (e.g., paragraph [0072]) does not appear to provide support for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 3-4, 10, 12, and 27 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “responsive to the detecting indicating that the first event is present in the first execution stage but that the second event is not present in the second execution stage: cause the event controller to prepare for handling the first event, the preparing occurring during the execution of the second instruction and the third instruction in the second execution stage” in lines 38-43. However, the original disclosure (e.g., paragraph [0072]) does not appear to provide support for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 14, 20, and 31 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejection of claim 13 above.
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “The method of claim 1, wherein: storing the first result in the holding registers includes providing the first result from the first execute stage to the holding registers; and storing the second result in the holding registers includes providing the second result from the second execute stage to the holding registers, wherein the first result and the second result are held in the holding registers without being committed to a destination register file until execution of the packet completes” in lines 1-7. Claim 1, upon which claim 10 is dependent, recites the limitation “preventing the first and second results from being committed by flushing the holding registers” in lines 24-25. As such, it is indefinite as to whether the first and second results are flushed or held in the holding registers until execution of the packet completes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant on page 8 argues: “Claim 3 is objected to for reciting "the the," and claim 4 was objected to for depending from claim 3. Claim 3 has been amended to delete the duplicate article. Withdrawal of the objections to claims 3 and 4 is respectfully requested.”
In view of the aforementioned amendment, the associated previously presented objections are withdrawn.
Applicant on page 9 argues: ‘Paragraph [0072] of the specification discloses the following: … This paragraph expressly describes the event controller preparing for a detected exception, such as by preparing exception reporting registers, preparing to fetch a service routine, and collecting control register data, while expressly confirming that the event controller does not yet handle the event. This is precisely the "preparing the event controller to handle the first event" element recited in claim 1.’
Examiner acknowledges that paragraph [0072] provides support for the "preparing an event controller to handle the first event" element recited in claim 1.
Applicant across pages 9-10 argues: “The temporal relationship of preparing for the detected exception during E2 execution is further established by the flowchart of FIG. 5. The flowchart of FIG. 5 makes the temporal placement of the preparation step unambiguous. Block 516 discloses forwarding the execute packet to the second execute stage (E2) after an event is detected in E1. Block 517, which immediately follows block 516, discloses the preparation step described in paragraph [0072]. The flowchart then continues to block 518 (determining whether pending stalls exist in E2) and block 520 (determining whether a late fault is detected in E2) - both of which are E2 processing steps. Accordingly, as shown in FIG. 5, block 517 (the preparation step) occurs after the execute packet has been forwarded to E2 (block 516) and before the E2 stall-checking and late-fault- detection steps (blocks 518 and 520). The second instruction and the third instruction are being executed in E2 during this entire sequence. The preparation therefore occurs during the execution of the second instruction and the third instruction in the second execute stage, exactly as recited in claim 1. Moreover, paragraph [0073] further discloses that after the preparation step of block 517, the pipeline controller proceeds to determine whether any pending stalls exist (block 518) while the execute packet remains in E2. This confirms that E2 execution continues after the preparation step, establishing that the preparation and the E2 execution of the second and third instructions are temporally overlapping (e.g., during).”
However, Examiner notes the possibility that the preparation step occurs after the instruction/EP has arrived at E2 but before the actual executing of the second instruction and the third instruction in the second execute stage. Examiner also notes that “Instruction/EP proceeds to E2” may be interpreted to mean that the Instruction/EP is moving to E2, and not necessarily that the Instruction/EP has arrived at E2. Therefore, Examiner submits that the recited “during the executing of the second instruction and the third instruction in the second execute stage” is not wholly supported by FIG. 5 and paragraphs [0072]-[0073], as reasonable as it may be for the instant invention to be implemented to entail the recited “during the executing of the second instruction and the third instruction in the second execute stage”.
Applicant on page 10 argues: ‘For the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that paragraph [0072] and FIG. 5 of the original disclosure, read together, expressly support the "preparing the event controller... wherein the preparing is performed during the executing of the second instruction and the third instruction in the second execute stage" element of claim 1, and requests withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. §112(a) rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 3, 4, 10, 12, and 27.’
Examiner notes that Applicant’s citations do not appear to address the “responsive to detecting the first event being present in first execute stage and not detecting the second event being present in the second execute stage” portion of the cited limitation (newly amended to read “responsive to the detecting indicating that the first event is present in the first execute stage and the second event is not present in the second execute stage”). Paragraph [0072], as cited by Examiner and reproduced by Applicant, discloses “Because the event controller 119 detects an event in the execute packet in block 504, the method 500 also includes the event controller 119 preparing for the detected exception in block 517.” Therefore, the recited preparing appears to be responsive to the detecting indicating that the first event is present in the first execute stage. However, paragraph [0072], for example, does not appear to disclose the recited preparing also being responsive to the detecting indicating that the second event is not present in the second execute stage. Examiner also notes Applicant’s argument in the first paragraph of page 10 of the remarks that “Accordingly, as shown in FIG. 5, block 517 (the preparation step) occurs … before the E2 stall-checking and late-fault- detection steps (blocks 518 and 520).”
Applicant across pages 10-11 argues: ‘Applicant submits that the Examiner has misconstrued the grammatical structure of the claim 4. The phrase "the detected first event in the first execute stage" is a noun phrase in which "in the first execute stage" is a postpositional modifier of "detected." In other words, it identifies the event by specifying where it was detected, not where handling occurs. However, rather than belabor this point, Applicant has amended claim 4 to recite "handling the detected first event" and removing the "in the first execute stage" language. Moreover, the earlier lines of claim 4 that precede the language at issue make it clear that "in the first execute stage" refers to where the first event was detected, not where the handling of that first event occurs. To be clear, claim 4 recited (and is now amended to more clearly convey this point) handling an event that was detected during the first execute stage, with handling occurring after E2 processing is complete.’
In view of Applicant’s amendment, the associated previously presented written description rejection is withdrawn. Examiner generally submits that the limitation as previously recited (entailing “handling the ‘detected first event’ in the first execute stage using the event controller” rather than, for example, “handling the ‘first event detected’ in the first execute stage using the event controller”) makes the Examiner’s construal of the grammatical structure of claim 4 the more proper grammatical interpretation.
Applicant on page 12 argues: “The written description support for this claim element rests on the same paragraph [0072] and FIG. 5 analysis set forth above in response to the rejection of claim 1. … Accordingly, for similar reasons set forth in response to the rejection of claim 1, Applicant respectfully submits that the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejection of claim 13 and its respective dependent claims 14, 20, and 31 should be withdrawn.”
Examiner’s above responses to arguments regarding the aforementioned rejection of claim 1 are likewise applicable to Applicant’s arguments regarding the aforementioned rejection of claim 13.
Applicant across pages 12-13 argues: “Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 13 (and dependent claims 3, 4, 10, and 14) to resolve each of these issues. … Applicant respectfully submits that the antecedent-basis and definiteness rejections of the independent claims and their dependents are thereby overcome, and withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is respectfully requested.”
In view of the aforementioned amendments, the associated previously presented indefinite rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant on page 13 argues: “Applicant respectfully submits that claim 10 as amended properly further limits claim 1, and withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) is respectfully requested.”
In view of the aforementioned amendment, the aforementioned rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) is withdrawn.
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 KEITH E VICARY whose telephone number is (571)270-1314. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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.
/KEITH E VICARY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183
Prosecution Insights