Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/084,425

DEVICE, METHOD AND SYSTEM TO CAPTURE OR RESTORE MICROARCHITECTURAL STATE OF A PROCESSOR CORE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Dec 19, 2022
Examiner
HUSON, ZACHARY K
Art Unit
2181
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Intel Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
89%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 89% — above average
89%
Career Allow Rate
690 granted / 775 resolved
+34.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+6.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
14 currently pending
Career history
789
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.3%
-32.7% vs TC avg
§103
36.1%
-3.9% vs TC avg
§102
34.7%
-5.3% vs TC avg
§112
8.1%
-31.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 775 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending. 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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/19/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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. Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-10, 13-15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ould-Ahmed-Vall (US 2020/0409770). As per claims 1, 10 and 15: Taking claim 1 as exemplary, Ould-Ahmed-Vall discloses a processor core comprising fetch circuitry to fetch a first instruction comprising a first opcode which is to correspond to a first one or more components of the processor core (Ould-Ahmed-Vall: Paragraph [0207] – [0208], operands in the save offload instruction identify the components); a decoder circuit coupled to the fetch circuitry, the decoder to decode the first instruction to generate a first decoded instruction (Ould-Ahmed-Vall: Paragraph [0207], save offload instruction decoded in pipeline 2191); and an execution circuit coupled to receive the first decoded instruction, wherein the execution circuit is to execute the first decoded instruction to save a microarchitectural state of the first one or more components to a repository of the processor core (Ould-Ahmed-Vall: Paragraph [0208] – [0210], saving the state of the selected components in the save-restore region 2321, a designated region in memory). As per claims 4, 13 and 18: Taking claim 4 as exemplary, Ould-Ahmed-Vall discloses comprising a micro-operation cache, wherein the first one or more components is the micro-operation cache (Ould-Ahmed-Vall: Paragraph [0208], interpreting the data components stored with the save offload instruction as being taken from a micro-operations cache equivalent). As per claims 6, 14 and 20: Taking claim 6 as exemplary, Ould-Ahmed-Vall discloses the fetch circuitry is further to fetch a second instruction comprising a second opcode which is to correspond to the first one or more components (Ould-Ahmed-Vall: Paragraph [0207] – [0208], operands in the save offload instruction identify the components); the decoder is further to decode the second instruction to generate a second decoded instruction (Ould-Ahmed-Vall: Paragraph [0207], save offload instruction decoded in pipeline 2191); and the execution circuit is further to execute the second decoded instruction to restore the microarchitectural state from the repository to the first one or more components (Ould-Ahmed-Vall: Paragraph [0212] – [0213], the restore instruction to return components from the save-restore region of memory). As per claim 7: Ould-Ahmed-Vall discloses the microarchitectural state is a first microarchitectural state, and wherein: the fetch circuitry is further to fetch a third instruction comprising a third opcode which is to correspond to a second one or more components of the processor core (Ould-Ahmed-Vall: Paragraph [0207] – [0208], operands in the save offload instruction identify the components); the decoder is further to decode the third instruction to generate a third decoded instruction (Ould-Ahmed-Vall: Paragraph [0207], save offload instruction decoded in pipeline 2191); and the execution circuit is further to execute the third decoded instruction to save a second microarchitectural state of the second one or more components to the repository (Ould-Ahmed-Vall: Paragraph [0208] – [0210], saving the state of the selected components in the save-restore region 2321, a designated region in memory). As per claim 8: Ould-Ahmed-Vall discloses the fetch circuitry is further to fetch a fourth instruction comprising a fourth opcode which is to correspond to the second one or more components (Ould-Ahmed-Vall: Paragraph [0207] – [0208], operands in the save offload instruction identify the components); the decoder is further to decode the fourth instruction to generate a fourth decoded instruction (Ould-Ahmed-Vall: Paragraph [0207], save offload instruction decoded in pipeline 2191); and the execution circuit is further to execute the fourth decoded instruction to restore the second microarchitectural state from the repository to the second one or more components (Ould-Ahmed-Vall: Paragraph [0212] – [0213], the restore instruction to return components from the save-restore region of memory). As per claim 9: Ould-Ahmed-Vall discloses the microarchitectural state is a first microarchitectural state, and wherein: the fetch circuitry is further to fetch a second instruction comprising a second opcode which is to correspond to a second one or more components of the processor core (Ould-Ahmed-Vall: Paragraph [0207] – [0208], operands in the save offload instruction identify the components); the decoder is further to decode the second instruction to generate a second decoded instruction (Ould-Ahmed-Vall: Paragraph [0207], save offload instruction decoded in pipeline 2191); and the execution circuit is further to execute the second decoded instruction to save a second microarchitectural state of the second one or more components to the repository (Ould-Ahmed-Vall: Paragraph [0208] – [0210], saving the state of the selected components in the save-restore region 2321, a designated region in memory). 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. Claim(s) 2-3, 5, 11-12, 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ould-Ahmed-Vall as applied to claims 1, 10 and 15 above, and further in view of Reid (GB2574042A). As per claims 2, 11 and 16: Ould-Ahmed-Vall does not specifically teach that the first one or more components is a branch prediction unit. However, Reid teaches the saving of the branch prediction state in a memory separate from the branch predictor (Reid: Page 17 lines 17-27) as a way to prevent an attacker from being able to corrupt the branch prediction state (Reid: Page 17 line 17 – Page 18 line 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Ould-Ahmed-Vall to implement its techniques of saving component data to the branch predictor as taught by Reid in order to prevent an attacker from being able to corrupt the branch prediction state (Reid: Page 17 line 17 – Page 18 line 14). As per claims 3, 12 and 17: Ould-Ahmed-Vall does not specifically teach that the first one or more components is a branch target buffer. However, Reid teaches the saving of the branch prediction state in a memory separate from the branch target buffer (Reid: Page 18 lines 1 - 7) as a way to prevent an attacker from being able to corrupt the branch target buffer state (Reid: Page 18 lines 1 - 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Ould-Ahmed-Vall to implement its techniques of saving component data to the branch target buffer as taught by Reid in order to prevent an attacker from being able to corrupt the branch target buffer state (Reid: Page 18 lines 1 - 14). As per claims 5 and 19: Ould-Ahmed-Vall discloses a micro operation cache where the first one or more components comprises two or more components (Ould-Ahmed-Vall: Paragraph [0208], interpreting the data components stored with the save offload instruction as being taken from a micro-operations cache equivalents). Ould-Ahmed-Vall does not specifically disclose that the components include a branch prediction unit and a branch target buffer. However, Reid teaches the saving of the branch prediction state and a branch target buffer in a memory separate from the branch predictor (Reid: Page 17 lines 17-27 and Page 18 lines 1 - 7) as a way to prevent an attacker from being able to corrupt the branch prediction state (Reid: Page 17 line 17 – Page 18 line 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Ould-Ahmed-Vall to implement its techniques of saving state data to the branch predictor and the branch target buffer as taught by Reid in order to prevent an attacker from being able to corrupt the branch prediction state (Reid: Page 17 line 17 – Page 18 line 14). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Moshe et al (US 2024/0153572) teaches restore commands to load snapshot data into buffers registers and caches. Al Sheikh et al (US 2021/0064378) teaches swapping and restoring context specific branch predictor states in a processor. Grewal et al (US 2019/0138720) teaches side channel attack prevention by maintaining architectural state consistency. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY K HUSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 - 3:30 EST. 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, Idriss Alrobaye can be reached at (571) 270-1023. 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. /ZACHARY K HUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2181
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 19, 2022
Application Filed
Feb 09, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 31, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602252
SPARSE MATRIX MULTIPLICATION IN A NEURAL NETWORK
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12602231
PROCESSOR, PHYSICAL REGISTER MANAGEMENT METHOD, AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12579081
MEMORY APPARATUS FOR PROVIDING RELIABILITY, AVAILABILITY, AND SERVICEABILITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12578968
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR BRANCH PRE-RESOLUTION BY SOFTWARE-PROVIDED HARDWARE-MANAGED BACKSLICE EXECUTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12578962
PROCESSOR AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING PROCESSOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
89%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+6.8%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 775 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