CTNF 17/876,706 CTNF 82556 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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, 13-14, 27, and 31 are newly amended, and claims 2, 5-6, 22-26, and 28-30 are newly cancelled by the RCE received March 16, 2026. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 23, 2026 , has been entered. Claim Objections 07-29-01 Claims 3-4 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required. In claim 3, line 4, “the the” should be “the”. Claim 4 is objected to for failing to alleviate the objection of claim 3 above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA 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. 07-31-01 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 detecting the first event being present in first execute stage and not detecting the second event being present in the second execute stage: preparing the 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 30-34. 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 4 recites the limitation “after handling the detected first event in the first execute stage using the event controller” in lines 3-4. However, the original disclosure does not appear to provide support for this limitation. For example, the original disclosure (e.g. FIG. 5, FIG. 6c) does not appear to provide support for handling the detected first event in the first execute stage. Claim 13 recites the limitation “responsive to the detection of the first event in the first execution stage but not the second event 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 37-41. 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. 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1, 3-4, 10, 12-14, 20, 27, and 31 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation “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” in lines 30-31. However, it is indefinite, in view of claim 1, lines 11-12, and claim 1, lines 20-21, as to whether the former detection (or lack thereof) is of the first event being present in first execute stage at any time, or whether the former detection (or lack thereof) is of the first event being, in particular, present in the first execute stage during the execution of the first instruction, the second instruction, and the third instruction in the first execute stage. Similarly, it is indefinite as to whether the latter detection (or lack thereof) is of the second event at any time, or whether the latter detection (or lack thereof) is of the second event being, in particular, present in the second execute stage during the execution of the second instruction and the third instruction in the second execute stage. Similarly, see the limitation “responsive to detecting the first event being present in first execution stage” in claim 4, lines 1-2; “the detected first event in the first execute stage” in claim 4, line 3; and “responsive to detecting neither another first event nor another second event in the first execute stage and the second execute stage, respectively” in claim 4, lines 10-11. Claim 1 recites the limitation “not detecting the second event being present in the second execute stage” in lines 30-31. However, it is indefinite as to whether this limitation is intended to be equivalent to “detecting the second event not being present in the second execute stage”, or whether the limitation is intended to encompass a scenario where no detection is performed. Claim 1 recites the limitation “first execute stage” in line 30. However, it is indefinite as to whether this first execute stage is the same as, or different from, “a first execute stage” as recited in claim 1, lines 6-7. Claim 1 recites the limitation “the event controller” in line 32. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Note that this limitation is also recited in claim 1, line 38. Note that this limitation is also recited in claim 4, lines 3-4; and claim 27, line 1. Claim 1 recites the limitation “the third execute stage” in line 37. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claims 3-4, 10, 12, and 27 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 1 above. Claim 3 recites the limitation “the first execute stage” in line 2. However, it is indefinite as to whether the antecedent basis for this limitation is “a first execute stage” in claim 1, lines 6-7, or “first execute stage” in claim 1, line 30. Note that this limitation is also recited in claim 3, lines 4-5. Claim 4 is rejected for failing to alleviate the rejection of claim 3 above. Claim 4 recites the limitation “first execution stage” in line 2. However, it is indefinite as to whether this first execution stage is the same as, or different from, “a first execute stage” in claim 1, lines 6-7. Similarly, it is indefinite as to whether this first execution stage is the same as, or different from, “first execute stage” in claim 1, line 30. Claim 4 recites the limitation “the first execute stage” in line 3. However, it is indefinite as to whether the antecedent basis for this limitation is “a first execute stage” in claim 1, lines 6-7; “first execute stage” in claim 1, line 30; or “first execution stage” in claim 4, line 2. Note that this limitation is also recited in claim 4, lines 10-11. Claim 4 recites the limitation “The method of claim 3 further comprising, responsive to detecting the first event being present in first execution stage: after handling the detected first event in the first execute stage using the event controller, restarting…” in lines 1-4. However, it is indefinite as to whether this limitation is intended to further limit the limitation “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: preparing … and handling the first event using the event controller” in lines 30-38, in view of the presence of “and not detecting the second event being present in the second execute stage” in claim 1, lines 30-31, but the absence of analogous language in claim 4, lines 1-2. Claim 10 recites the limitation “the first execute stage” in lines 2-3. However, it is indefinite as to whether the antecedent basis for this limitation is “a first execute stage” in claim 1, lines 6-7, or “first execute stage” in claim 1, line 30. Claim 12 recites the limitation “the first and second execute stages” in lines 2-3. However, it is indefinite as to whether the antecedent basis for the “first … execution stage[]” portion of this limitation is “a first execute stage” in claim 1, lines 6-7, or “first execute stage” in claim 1, line 30. Claim 13 recites the limitation “the detection of neither the first event in the first execution stage nor the second event in the second execution stage” in lines 24-25. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Note that while claim 13 previously recited detecting whether a first event is present in the first execution stage and whether a second event is present in the second execution stage, claim 13 did not previously recite a result of the aforementioned detections being a detection of neither the first event in the first execution stage nor the second event in the second execution stage. In addition, it is indefinite, in view of claim 13, lines 13-15, and claim 13, lines 21-23, whether the detection (or lack thereof) is of the first event in the first execution stage at any time, or whether the detection (or lack thereof) is of the first event being, in particular, present in the first execution stage during the execution of the first instruction, the second instruction, and the third instruction in the first execution stage. Similarly, it is indefinite as to whether the detection (or lack thereof) is of the second event in the second execution stage at any time, or whether the detection (or lack thereof) is of the second event being, in particular, present in the second execution stage during the execution of the second instruction and the third instruction in the second execution stage. Note that this limitation is also recited in claim 14, lines 1-3. Claim 13 recites the limitation “the detection of the second event in the second execution stage” in lines 31-32. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Note that while claim 13 previously recited detecting whether a second event is present in the second execution stage, claim 13 did not previously recite a result of the aforementioned detection being a detection of the second event in the second execution stage. In addition, it is indefinite, in view of claim 13, lines 21-23, as to whether the detection (or lack thereof) is of the second event in the second execution stage at any time, or whether the detection (or lack thereof) is of the second event being, in particular, present in the second execution stage during the execution of the second instruction and the third instruction in the second execution stage. Claim 13 recites the limitation “the detection of the first event in the first execution stage but not the second event in the second execution stage” in lines 37-38. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Note that while claim 13 previously recited detecting whether a first event is present in the first execution stage and whether a second event is present in the second execution stage, claim 13 did not previously recite a result of the aforementioned detections being a detection of the first event in the first execution stage but not the second event in the second execution stage. In addition, it is indefinite, in view of claim 13, lines 13-15, and claim 13, lines 21-23, as to whether the detection (or lack thereof) is of the first event in the first execution stage at any time, or whether the detection (or lack thereof) is of the first event being, in particular, present in the first execution stage during the execution of the first instruction, the second instruction, and the third instruction in the first execution stage. Similarly, it is indefinite as to whether the detection (or lack thereof) is of the second event in the second execution stage at any time, or whether the detection (or lack thereof) is of the second event being, in particular, present in the second execution stage during the execution of the second instruction and the third instruction in the second execution stage. Claim 13 recites the limitation “the holding register” in line 42. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Note that this limitation is also recited in claim 14, line 4. Claims 14, 20, and 31 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 13 above. 07-36 AIA 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. 07-36-01 AIA Claim 10 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 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. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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” in lines 1-5. Claim 1, upon which claim 10 is dependent, recites the limitation “the first instruction is completed in the first execute stage and a first result from the completed execution of the first instruction is stored in the holding registers” in lines 7-9, and the limitation “the second instruction is completed in the second execute stage and a second result from the completed execution of the second instruction is stored in the holding registers” in lines 14-16. Therefore, claim 10 does not appear to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Response to Arguments Applicant on page 7 argues: “The Examiner set forth various objections to claims 1-6, 10, 12-14, 20, and 22-31 relating generally to grammatical issues. See Final Office Action, pp. 2-3. Applicant has either amended these claims in accordance with the language suggested by the Examiner or canceled claims subject to the alleged objections. As such, withdrawal of the claim objections is respectfully requested.” In view of the aforementioned amendments and claim cancellations, the previously presented objections to the claims are withdrawn. Applicant on page 8 argues: ‘In response to this first reason, Applicant has amended claim 1 to more clearly recite that a packet is received "...using a processor execution pipeline having holding registers and a plurality of sequentially arranged execute stages." The amendment clarifies the holding registers as being part of the processor execution pipeline. Applicant respectfully submits that the amendment addresses the first reason. The dependent claims for claim 1 are either amended in a consistent manner or canceled.’ In view of the aforementioned amendment, the associated previously presented claim rejection is withdrawn. Applicant on page 9 argues: ‘As understood, the Examiner seems to be interpreting the language of the previously presented version of claim 1 as requiring that when both the first event and the second event are detected, the actions associated with detection of the first event and the actions associated with detection of the second event are both be performed. Although Applicant does not necessarily agree with this interpretation, Applicant notes that in response to the second reason, claim 1, as amended, no longer recites detection of a second event and the resulting actions taken in response thereto. Additionally, it is noted that claim 1 now recites "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" to further clarify the recited subject matter. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that the amendments to claim 1 also address the second reason. The dependent claims for claim 1 are either amended in a consistent manner or canceled.’ In view of the aforementioned amendments, the associated previously presented claim rejection is withdrawn. Applicant on page 10 argues: “In response to this first reason, Applicant has amended claim 13 to recite that the detection at issue is whether the second event is present in the second execution stage (rather than the first execution stage as previously recited). Support for this feature is provided at least in Figure 6b, which shows the detection of a second event (e.g., a late fault) in the second execution stage E2. Applicant respectfully submits that the amendment addresses the first reason.” In view of the aforementioned amendment, the associated previously presented claim rejection is withdrawn. Applicant across pages 10-11 argues: “Although Applicant does not necessarily agree with this interpretation, Applicant notes that claim 13 is amended so that the actions of ...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; flush the holding register to prevent the first and second results from being committed; not execute the third instruction in the third execution stage; and cause the event controller to handle the first event ... are responsive to detection of the first event in the first execution stage but not the second event in the second execution stage. Support for this amendment is provided at least by Figure 5 and Figure 6c, which shows that the event detected in the first execution stage is handled when no event (e.g., no late fault) is detected in the second execution stage. Additionally, Applicant notes that the actions of … flush the holding register to prevent the first and second results from being committed; not execute the third instruction in the third execution stage; and cause the event controller to handle the second event ... being responsive to the second event in the second execution stage is supported, because the second event is handled regardless of whether or not the first event is detected in the first execution stage, as shown in Figure 5.” In view of the aforementioned amendment, the associated previously presented claim rejection is withdrawn. Applicant on page 11 argues: “Claim 22 is canceled. As such, the rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) is moot.” In view of the aforementioned claim cancellation, the associated previously presented claim rejection is withdrawn. Applicant on page 12 argues: ‘Claim 31 recites subject matter similar to claim 27 and was rejected under similar reasoning. See Final Office Action, p. 7. While Applicant does not necessarily agree with the Examiner's interpretation of the claims, Applicant has amended claims 27 and 31 to remove the phrase "at least one of." In view of the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejection of claims 27 and 31.’ In view of the aforementioned amendments, the associated previously presented claim rejections are withdrawn. Applicant on page 13 argues: ‘In response to the first reason, Applicant notes that the limitations relating to "responsive to detection of neither the first nor second event" and "responsive to detection of the second event" are canceled. Further, in instances reciting the detection of the first event in claim 1 and its dependent claims, Applicant has clarified that such detection is the detection of the first event in the first execute stage. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that the amendments to claim 1 address the first reason. The dependent claims for claim 1 are either amended in a consistent manner or canceled.’ In view of the aforementioned amendments, various facets of the associated previously presented claim rejection are overcome. However, other facets of the associated previously presented claim rejection appear to remain applicable — see the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 section above. Applicant on page 14 argues: ‘In response to the second reason, Applicant notes that the limitations relating to "responsive to detection of the second event" are canceled. Additionally, the limitations relating to "responsive to detection of the first event" are amended to recite "responsive to detecting the first event being present in first execution stage and not detecting the second event being present in the second execution stage." Thus, claim 1 presently recites just the condition in which the first event is detected and the second event is not detected, and does not recite other conditional steps. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that the amendments to claim 1 also address the second reason. The dependent claims for claim 1 are either amended in a consistent manner or canceled.’ In view of the aforementioned amendments, the associated previously presented claim rejection is withdrawn. Applicant across pages 14-15 argues: ‘In response to this rejection, claim 3 is amended to recite "the detecting whether the first event is present in the first execute stage includes determining whether an interrupt or an exception occurred during the execution of the first instruction, the the second instruction, and the third instruction in the first execute stage." In view of this amendment, Applicant submits that the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is overcome.’ In view of the aforementioned amendment, the associated previously presented claim rejection is withdrawn. Applicant on page 15 argues: ‘In response to this rejection, Applicant notes that references to detecting the second event have been removed from claim 4, except for the detection of another second event in the second execute stage after the execution of the instructions is restarted. In view of this amendment, Applicant submits that the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is overcome.’ In view of the aforementioned amendment, the associated previously presented claim rejection is withdrawn. Applicant on page 16 argues: ‘Applicant notes that the first reason here is similar to the first reason given for claim 1. In response to the first reason for claim 13, Applicant notes that the first event and second event have been clarified by the present amendment to "the first event in the first execute stage" and "second event in the second execute stage" for clearer antecedent basis. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that the amendments to claim 13 address the first reason. The dependent claims for claim 13 are either amended in a consistent manner or canceled.’ In view of the aforementioned amendments, various facets of the associated previously presented claim rejection are overcome. However, other facets of the associated previously presented claim rejection appear to remain applicable — see the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 section above. Applicant on page 17 argues: “Applicant notes that the second reason here is similar to the second reason given for claim 1. In response to the second reason for claim 13, Applicant notes that clarifying amendments similar to those in claim 1 (discussed above) have been made in claim 13. For instance, while claim 13 maintains the three recited scenarios, these have been clarified to recite: (1) responsive to the detection of neither the first event in the first execution stage nor the second event in the second execution stage; (2) responsive to the detection of the second event in the second execution stage; and (3) responsive to the detection of the first event in the first execution stage but not the second event in the second execution stage. Thus, the third scenario clarifies that the recited actions are responsive to the first event being detected but not the second. Moreover, Applicant submits that the second scenario (e.g., detection of the second event) is not indefinite because the recited actions are performed regardless of whether the first event is detected or not. For instance, the flow chart shown in Figure 5 clearly illustrates that when a late fault is detected (e.g., a second event in the second execution stage), then it is the second event that is handled by the event controller even if the first event is also detected. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that the amendments to claim 13 address the second reason. The dependent claims for claim 13 are either amended in a consistent manner or canceled.” In view of the aforementioned amendments, the associated previously presented claim rejection is withdrawn. Applicant on page 17 argues: “Claim 22 is canceled. As such, the rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is moot.” In view of the aforementioned claim cancellation, the associated previously presented claim rejection is withdrawn. Applicant across pages 17-18 argues: “With respect to the rejection of claims 28-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Applicant has, for claim 31, corrected the dependency of this claim to depend from claim 13 rather than claim 10. Thus, Applicant submits that the rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is overcome. Further, claims 28-30 are canceled, and thus the rejection of claims 28-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is moot.” In view of the aforementioned amendment and claim cancellations, the associated previously presented claim rejections are withdrawn. Applicant on page 18 argues: “Claims 24-26 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) for allegedly failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim(s) from which they depend. These claims have been canceled and thus the rejection under this ground is moot.” In view of the aforementioned claim cancellations, the associated previously presented claim rejections are withdrawn. Conclusion 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 Application/Control Number: 17/876,706 Page 2 Art Unit: 2183 Application/Control Number: 17/876,706 Page 3 Art Unit: 2183 Application/Control Number: 17/876,706 Page 5 Art Unit: 2183 Application/Control Number: 17/876,706 Page 6 Art Unit: 2183 Application/Control Number: 17/876,706 Page 7 Art Unit: 2183 Application/Control Number: 17/876,706 Page 8 Art Unit: 2183 Application/Control Number: 17/876,706 Page 9 Art Unit: 2183 Application/Control Number: 17/876,706 Page 10 Art Unit: 2183 Application/Control Number: 17/876,706 Page 11 Art Unit: 2183 Application/Control Number: 17/876,706 Page 12 Art Unit: 2183 Application/Control Number: 17/876,706 Page 13 Art Unit: 2183 Application/Control Number: 17/876,706 Page 15 Art Unit: 2183 Application/Control Number: 17/876,706 Page 16 Art Unit: 2183 Application/Control Number: 17/876,706 Page 17 Art Unit: 2183
Prosecution Insights