DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Petition Decision
The Examiner respectfully requests Applicant to follow the guidelines per the petition decision filed 02/18/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 12/27/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file, and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-9, 11, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7: Change to “…unused in the tracking of the frame access of the set.” (page 2/6)
Claim 8: Change all instances of the word “third” to “second.” (page 2/6)
Claim 9: Change all instances of the word “third” to “second.” (page 3/6)
Claim 11: Change to “…a frame of the respective set, each set having an associated mapping…” (page 3/6).
Claim 16: Change to “…a frame of the respective set, each set having an associated mapping…” (page 5/6).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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 "the respective set" in page 1/6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Because Claims 2-10 depend upon Claim 1, Claims 2-10 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the second set" in page 2/6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the set" in page 2/6. It is unclear as to which set of the claimed plurality of sets (per Claim 1) is being referred to.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the set" in page 3/6. It is unclear as to which set of the claimed plurality of sets (per Claim 1) is being referred to.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the second set" in page 3/6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the respective set" in page 3/6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Because Claims 12-15 depend upon Claim 11, Claims 12-15 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the respective set" in page 5/6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the memory" in page 5/6. It is unclear as to which memory is being referred to:
Claim 16: “…a memory containing a program executable by the one or more computer processors to perform an operation comprising: determining, for each of a plurality of sets of contiguous frames of memory,…”
Because Claims 17-20 depend upon Claim 16, Claims 17-20 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 recite:
determining, by a program and for each of a plurality of sets of contiguous frames of memory, whether a reference bit is set,
wherein the reference bit is included in a control field for a frame of the respective set,
each set having an associated mapping from a corresponding plurality of pages of a virtualized address space;
maintaining, for each of the plurality of sets of contiguous frames and based on the reference bit for the respective set, an unreferenced-interval count that represents an age since any frame of the respective set was last accessed,
wherein the unreferenced-interval count and the reference bit are cleared by the program upon determining that the reference bit is set;
determining, by one or more computer processors, that a condition for generating a diagnostic dump of the memory is met; and
upon determining that the unreferenced-interval count of a first set of the plurality of sets does not exceed a threshold count, including the first set in the diagnostic dump.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes:
Claim 1 is a process.
Claim 11 is an article of manufacture.
Claim 16 is a machine.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘determining’ limitations in # 1 and 6 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), are mental processes that cover performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses a person making an observation and/or an evaluation associated with data.
The ‘maintaining’ limitation in # 4 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “maintaining” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making an observation and/or an evaluation associated with a count value (e.g. observing a count increasing, decreasing, or remaining constant).
The ‘including’ limitation in # 7 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “including” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making a judgement to include data in a process.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
In # 2 above, the claimed reference bit is merely further described in the context of a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
In # 3 above, the claimed ‘each set’ is merely further described in the context of a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The ‘are cleared’ limitation in # 5 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, “clearing” in the context of this claim encompasses using generic instructions to clear one or more values as a result of a judicial exception: “determining.” See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Additionally, one or more of the claims recite the following additional elements:
a program (Claim 1),
memory (Claims 1, 11, and 16),
one or more computer processors (Claims 1, 11, and 16),
a computer-readable storage medium (Claim 11), and
a memory (Claim 16).
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 2, 12, and 17 recite:
upon a determination that the unreferenced-interval count of a second set of the plurality of sets exceeds the threshold count, exclude the second set from the diagnostic dump.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes:
Claim 2 is a process.
Claim 12 is an article of manufacture.
Claim 17 is a machine.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘exclude’ limitation in # 8 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “excluding” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making a judgement to exclude data in a process.
Claims 3, 13, and 18 merely further describe the claimed program, the claimed condition, and the claimed first set of respective Claims 1, 11, and 16 in the context of one or more fields of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claims 4, 14, and 19 merely further describe the claimed reference bit of respective Claims 1, 11, and 16 in the context of a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claims 5, 15, and 20 recite:
updating an index of sets excluded from the diagnostic dump, wherein the index is updated to reflect page addresses corresponding to the second set.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes:
Claim 5 is a process.
Claim 15 is an article of manufacture.
Claim 20 is a machine.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). The abstract idea(s) of Claims 1, 11, and 16 are the same as the abstract idea(s) of Claims 5, 15, and 20, respectfully.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘updating’ limitation in # 9 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “updating” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data manipulation. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
With regards to # 9 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); and
iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Claim 6 recites:
wherein the unreferenced-interval count is maintained by determining, at a predefined interval and based on the reference bit, whether to increment or clear the unreferenced-interval count.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a process.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘determining’ limitation in # 10 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making an observation and/or an evaluation associated with data.
Claim 7 merely further describes the claimed ‘each frame,’ the claimed reference bit, and the claimed ‘each reference bit’ of Claim 1 in the context of one or more fields of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 8 recites:
wherein the unreferenced-interval count of a third set of the plurality of sets is not maintained, upon a determination that the plurality of pages corresponding to the third set are of a memory object for which an option to mandate dumping is enabled or an option to mandate skipping is enabled.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a process.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘upon a determination’ limitation in # 11 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making an observation and/or an evaluation associated with data.
Claim 9 recites:
wherein the program comprises an operating system, the operating system having a plurality of components including a daemon and a logger,
wherein the unreferenced-interval count is maintained by determining, by the daemon at a predefined interval and based on the reference bit, whether to increment or clear the unreferenced-interval count, and
wherein the diagnostic dump is generated by the logger;
wherein each frame of the set is associated with a respective control field that includes a respective reference bit, wherein each reference bit other than the reference bit of the frame is unused in tracking frame access of the set;
wherein the unreferenced-interval count of a third set of the plurality of sets is not maintained, upon a determination that the plurality of pages corresponding to the third set are of a memory object for which an option to mandate dumping is enabled or an option to mandate skipping is enabled.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a process.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘determining’ limitation in # 13 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making an observation and/or an evaluation associated with data.
The ‘upon a determination’ limitation in # 16 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making an observation and/or an evaluation associated with data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
In # 12 above, the claimed program is merely further described in the context of a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
In # 14 above, the claimed diagnostic dump is merely further described in the context of a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
In # 15 above, the claimed ‘each frame’ and the claimed ‘each reference bit’ are merely further described in the context of one or more fields of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 10 recites:
determining that the virtualized address space is of at least a threshold size;
updating an index of sets excluded from the diagnostic dump, wherein the index is updated to reflect page addresses corresponding to the second set;
transmitting the diagnostic dump;
generating an additional diagnostic dump that includes both of the first and second sets; and
responsive to a request subsequent to transmission of the diagnostic dump, transmitting the additional diagnostic dump.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a process.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘determining’ limitation in # 17 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making an observation and/or an evaluation associated with data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘updating’ limitation in # 18 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “updating” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data manipulation. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The ‘transmitting’ limitations in # 19 and 21 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “transmitting” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data transmission. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g).
The ‘generating’ limitation in # 20 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data manipulation. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
With regards to # 18-21 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); and
iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
For at least the reasoning provided above, Claims 1-20 are patent ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The elements of independent Claims 1, 11, and 16 were neither found through a search of the prior art nor considered obvious by the Examiner. In particular, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest, in combination with the remaining limitations and in the context of their claims as a whole:
Claim 1: “…determining, by a program and for each of a plurality of sets of contiguous frames of memory, whether a reference bit is set, wherein the reference bit is included in a control field for a frame of the respective set, each set having an associated mapping from a corresponding plurality of pages of a virtualized address space; maintaining, for each of the plurality of sets of contiguous frames and based on the reference bit for the respective set, an unreferenced-interval count that represents an age since any frame of the respective set was last accessed, wherein the unreferenced-interval count and the reference bit are cleared by the program upon determining that the reference bit is set;…”
Claims 11 and 16: “…determining, for each of a plurality of sets of contiguous frames of memory, whether a reference bit is set, wherein the reference bit is included in a control field for a frame of the respective set each set having an associated mapping from a corresponding plurality of pages of a virtualized address space; maintaining, for each of the plurality of sets of contiguous frames and based on the reference bit for the respective set, an unreferenced-interval count that represents an age since any frame of the respective set was last accessed, wherein the unreferenced-interval count and the reference bit are cleared upon determining that the reference bit is set;…”
From a search of the prior art, one reference was found and considered by the Examiner to be the most-related prior art with regards to the claimed invention of the instant application:
Kumar A et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 11,907,102 B2), hereinafter “Kumar.”
Kumar: col. 6, lines 41-54 teach deleting the oldest of a plurality of logs when the number of debug logs is greater than a threshold determined by the size of the dynamic logger cache or other predetermined criteria. In other embodiments, the predefined procedure comprises of deleting debug logs which are determined to not be useful for any future faults or errors (as a non-limiting example, a procedure for connecting to an external processor, would no longer be useful once the connection is established and verified to be functioning properly). In yet another embodiment, the predefined procedure would be to delete all but the last predetermined number of debug logs when a particular checkpoint is reached.
Although conceptually similar to the claimed invention of the instant application, Kumar does not teach determining, for each of a plurality of sets of contiguous frames of memory, whether a reference bit is set, wherein the reference bit is included in a control field for a frame of the respective set each set having an associated mapping from a corresponding plurality of pages of a virtualized address space, and maintaining, for each of the plurality of sets of contiguous frames and based on the reference bit for the respective set, an unreferenced-interval count that represents an age since any frame of the respective set was last accessed, wherein the unreferenced-interval count and the reference bit are cleared upon determining that the reference bit is set.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jibu et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 9,575,827 B2); teaching detecting writing into a memory; and saving, in association with each other in a predetermined storage area, data before the writing which is stored in a data area of a write destination of the detected writing, and context information of a processor at a time of detecting the writing into the memory.
Takamiya (U.S. Patent No. US 10,204,000 B2); teaching an apparatus including a memory to store objects of a plurality of classes, and a storage device to store plural pieces of dump data acquired at different times from the memory. The apparatus generates object-count information indicating a number of objects belonging to each of a plurality of classes, based on the plural pieces of dump data acquired at different times from a memory storing objects of the plurality of classes. The apparatus determines, for each class, at least a portion of dump data that includes a locally minimum number of objects in time variation of the number of objects of the each class, as first dump data that is candidate for storage, based on the generated object-count information. When reducing a total amount of dump data, the apparatus excludes the first dump data determined for each class from second dump data that is to be deleted.
Kumar (see above).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH KUDIRKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 5pm ET.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at (571) 272-0631. 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.
/JOSEPH R KUDIRKA/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2114