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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 1, 2025, has been entered.
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are pending in this office action and presented for examination. Claims 1-2, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14-18, and 20 are newly amended by the RCE received December 16, 2025.
Examiner contacted Applicant’s representative (Attorney Mellor) on January 20, 2026, to discuss claim language; however, Applicant’s representative requested that an Office Action be mailed out.
Claim Notes
In claim 17, line 12, “and correspond” may have been intended to be “and that correspond” in view of analogous amendments in claims 1 and 12.
In claim 1, Examiner recommends adding in a step of “determining that the write counter reaches…” between the tracking step of lines 7-8 and the “; and when the write counter reaches…” step of lines 8-12, as the latter may be a contingent limitation.
In claim 12, Examiner recommends adding in a step of “updating the LTB entries” between the tracking step of lines 7-8 and the “after the LTB entries are updated…” step beginning on line 9, as the latter may be a contingent limitation.
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 7-11 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 7 recites the limitation “the remaining number of segmented load uops that are designated to be involved in the data transformation” in lines 2-3. However, the original disclosure does not appear to provide support for this limitation. For example, the original disclosure (e.g., FIG. 8, step 816) does not appear to provide support for a remaining number of segmented load uops “designated” to be involved in data transformation.
Claims 8-11 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejection of claim 7 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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 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 “initializing, by a Load Store Unit (LSU), a write counter associated with the LTB entry with a number of write data that are expected to update the LTB entry; tracking, via the write counter, a number of write data remaining to update the LTB entry; and when the write counter reaches a predetermined value, thereby indicating that data in the LTB entry is ready” in lines 5-10. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, the instant specification discloses that a “pre-determined value” encompasses numbers other than zero (see, for example, paragraphs [0050], [0052], [0061], [0067], and [0080]); however, it is indefinite as to how a write counter that tracks a number of write data remaining could have a predetermined value other than zero when the data is ready. Similarly, see the subject matter of claims 2 and 4.
Claims 2 and 4-11 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a remaining number of segmented load uops that are expected to be involved in data transformation” in lines 12-13. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, it is unclear as to what it means for a segmented load uop to be “expected to be” “involved” in data transformation. For example, it is unclear (e.g., for the purposes of infringement analysis) as to how it can be determined whether a segmented load uop is “expected to be” “involved” in data transformation. For example, it is unclear as to whether the mere existence of a load uop (e.g., a segmented load uop) embodies an implicit expectation that the load uop is involved in data transformation, given that a load uop entails a loading of data to a destination that overwrites (and thus transforms) previous data at that destination. For example, it is unclear as to whether a programmer who merely inserts a segmented load instruction into code, for the purpose of facilitating, in the programmer’s current or future code, a data transformation that has particular spatial and/or temporal distance from the segmented load instruction would reflect a segmented load uop being “expected to be” “involved” in data transformation.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a remaining number of segmented load uops that are expected to be involved in data transformation” in lines 12-13. However, it is indefinite as to whether the recited segmented load uops are expected to be involved in a same data transformation, or the recited segmented load uops are expected to be involved in respective data transformations. Similarly, see “data transformation” in claim 7, line 3, and claim 10, line 4.
Claims 7-11 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 6 above.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the remaining number of segmented load uops that are designated to be involved in the data transformation” in lines 2-3. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the remaining number of segmented load uops that are designated to be involved in the data transformation” recited in lines 2-3. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, it is unclear as to what it means for a given entity to “designate” a remaining number of segmented load uops to be “involved” in data transformation. For example, it is unclear (e.g., for the purposes of infringement analysis) as to how it can be determined whether a given entity “designates” or does not “designate” a remaining number of segmented load uops to be “involved” in data transformation. For example, it is unclear as to whether the mere existence of a load uop (e.g., a segmented load uop) embodies an implicit designation that the load uop is involved in data transformation, given that a load uop entails a loading of data to a destination that overwrites (and thus transforms) previous data at that destination. For example, it is unclear as to whether a programmer who merely inserts a segmented load instruction into code, for the purpose of facilitating, in the programmer’s current or future code, a data transformation that has particular spatial and/or temporal distance from the segmented load instruction would reflect a segmented load uop being designated to be involved in data transformation.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the remaining number of segmented load uops that are designated to be involved in the data transformation” in lines 2-3. However, it is indefinite as to whether the recited segmented load uops are designated to be involved in a same data transformation, or the recited segmented load uops are designated to be involved in respective data transformations. Similarly, see “data transformation” in claim 7, line 3, and claim 10, line 4.
Claims 8-11 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 7 above.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the remaining number of the segmented load uops” in line 4. However, it is indefinite as to whether the antecedent basis for this limitation is “remaining number of segmented load uops that are expected to be involved in data transformation” in claim 6, lines 12-13, or “remaining number of segmented load uops that are designated to be involved in the data transformation” in claim 7, lines 2-3. Note that this limitation is also recited in claim 9, lines 1-2; claim 9, lines 2-3; claim 10, line 2; and claim 11, line 2.
Claims 9-11 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejection of claim 8 above.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein tracking the remaining number of the segmented load uops includes” in lines 1-2. However, it is indefinite as to whether this tracking has antecedent basis to the tracking of claim 6, line 12, or the tracking of claim 7, line 2.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a number of remaining segmented load uops that are expected for data transformation processing” in lines 13-14. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, it is unclear as to what it means for a segmented load uop to be “expected” for data transformation. For example, it is unclear (e.g., for the purposes of infringement analysis) as to how it can be determined whether a segmented load uop is “expected” for data transformation. For example, it is unclear as to whether the mere existence of a load uop (e.g., a segmented load uop) embodies an implicit expectation that the load uop is expected for data transformation, given that a load uop entails a loading of data to a destination that overwrites (and thus transforms) previous data at that destination.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a number of remaining segmented load uops that are expected for data transformation processing” in lines 13-14. However, it is indefinite as to whether the recited segmented load uops are expected to be involved in a same data transformation processing, or the recited segmented load uops are expected to be involved in respective instances of data transformation processing. Similarly, see “data transformation processing” in claim 15, line 3, and claim 16, lines 3-4.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “initializing, by a Load Store Unit (LSU), write counters associated with the LTB entries, wherein each of the write counters is configured to track a number of write data that are expected to update a respective LTB entry of the LTB entries” in lines 4-6. Claim 12 further recites the limitation “a write counter at a first LTB entry of the LTB entries” in line 12. However, it is indefinite as to whether or not the first LTB entry is associated with two different write counters — a write counter as set forth via the limitation of lines 4-6 above (which is not recited as being “at” an LTB entry) and a write counter as set forth via the limitation of line 12 above (which is recited as being “at” an LTB entry, and does not use antecedent basis language). Note that claim 14 recites “the write counter at the first LTB entry” in lines 1-2 and 3-4; claim 15 recites “the write counter” in line 2; and claim 16 recites “the write counter” in line 1 and line 2.
Claims 13-16 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 12 above.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “as subsequent load uops complete the data transformation” in line 3. However, it is indefinite as to whether the recited load uops are the same as, or different from, previously recited segmented load uops.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein tracking the number of the remaining segmented load uops includes” in lines 1-2. However, it is indefinite as to whether this tracking has antecedent basis to the tracking of claim 12, line 13, or the tracking of claim 13, line 4.
Claim 16 is rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 15 above.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “The method of claim 15, wherein the write counter is decremented by” in line 1-2. However, it is indefinite as to whether the aforementioned decrementing is intended to further narrow, or be distinct from, the step of “adjusting the write counter” recited in claim 15, line 2.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a respective write counter of the one or more write counters is configured to track a number of write data that are expected to update a respective Load Transfer Buffer (LTB) entry of LTB entries that corresponds to a segmented load instruction” in lines 5-8. However, there is no indication regarding which structure is performing the expecting (which is recited in the passive voice), or what it means for that structure to “expect” something. Specifying a particular structure that performs the recited function, provided such an amendment is supported by the original disclosure, would inform one of ordinary skill in the art of the metes and bounds of the functional limitation.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the write counter at the first LTB entry is configured to track a number of remaining segmented load uops that are expected to go through data transformation processing” in lines 15-17. However, there is no indication regarding which structure is performing the expecting (which is recited in the passive voice), or what it means for that structure to “expect” something. Specifying a particular structure that performs the recited function, provided such an amendment is supported by the original disclosure, would inform one of ordinary skill in the art of the metes and bounds of the functional limitation.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “number of remaining segmented load uops that are expected to go through data transformation processing” in lines 16-17. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, it is unclear as to whether the limitation is conveying that the segmented load uops themselves (i.e., the bits that make up the segmented load uops) get transformed.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a number of remaining segmented load uops that are expected to go through data transformation processing” in lines 16-17. However, it is indefinite as to whether the recited segmented load uops are expected to be involved in a same data transformation processing, or the recited segmented load uops are expected to be involved in respective instances of data transformation processing. Similarly, see “data transformation processing” in claim 20, line 4.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a respective write counter of the one or more write counters is configured to track a number of write data that are expected to update a respective Load Transfer Buffer (LTB) entry of LTB entries that corresponds corresponding to a segmented load instruction” in lines 5-8. Claim 17 further recites the limitation “a write counter at a first LTB entry of the LTB entries” in line 15. However, it is indefinite as to whether the first LTB entry is associated with two different write counters — a write counter as set forth via the limitation of lines 5-8 above (which is not recited as being “at” an LTB entry) and a write counter as set forth via the limitation of line 15 above (which is recited as being “at” an LTB entry, and does not use antecedent basis language). Note that claim 19 recites “the write counter at the first LTB entry” in lines 1-2 and 3-4, and claim 20 recites “the write counter” in lines 2-3.
Claims 18-20 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 17 above.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the write counter” in lines 2-3. However, the antecedent basis for this limitation is unclear. For example, it is indefinite as to whether the antecedent basis for this limitation is “a write counter at a first LTB entry” as recited in claim 17, line 15, or a write counter of “one or more write counters” as recited in claim 17, line 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant on page 8 argues: ‘Applicant has amended independent Claims 1, 12, and 17 (and dependent claims 6, 7, and 18) to replace "designated" with "expected to" (or "expected to go through"). This language is fully supported by the original disclosure. For example, step 816 of FIG. 8, explicitly states: "TRACK NUMBER OR PROGRESS OF SEGMENTED LOAD UOPS THAT ARE EXPECTED TO BE INVOLVED IN DATA TRANSFORMATION". Paragraph [0052] describes uops "that are expected to complete the transformation". Paragraph [0050] states that "...write counter 520 is initialized to the number of writes the LSU 512 is expected to update". Accordingly, the amendments align the claims with the text of the specification and drawings, rendering the rejection moot.’
In view of the aforementioned amendment, the associated previously presented written description rejections are withdrawn (although it is generally unclear as to the scenario(s) in which the expectation is not met).
Applicant on page 9 argues: ‘The Examiner questioned how a "remaining" counter could have a predetermined value other than zero. Applicant respectfully submits that Paragraph [0050] states: "If the write counter reaches zero (0) or certain pre-determined number...". The specification expressly contemplates implementations where the counter might target a non-zero offset. As such, the term "predetermined value" is distinctly claimed and fully supported by the specification.’
However, Applicant’s argument does not appear to address the particular rationale for rejection — how a write counter that tracks a number of write data remaining could have a predetermined value other than zero when the data is ready.
Applicant on page 9 argues: ‘Applicant has amended the final clause of claim 1 to "wherein waking up the uop causes the data in the LTB entry to be consumed." This clearly recites the result of the waking step, supported by Paragraph [0050] ("The corresponding micro- operation... may be awakened to consume the data...").’
In view of the aforementioned amendment, an associated facet of a previously presented rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant on page 9 argues: ‘The Examiner noted that "its current value" was indefinite regarding its antecedent. Applicant has amended claim 2 to recite "decrementing the current value," providing clear antecedent basis to "a current value" recited earlier in the claim.’
In view of the aforementioned amendment, the associated previously presented rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant on page 9 argues: ‘The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 14 for using "comprises" or "includes," arguing this open-ended language was indefinite regarding what "other distinct steps" might be involved. Applicant has amended claims 8 and 14 to replace "comprises" and "includes" with "consists of."’
In view of the aforementioned amendment, the associated previously presented rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant on page 10 argues: ‘Claims 10, 16, 20 ("Completion of'): The Examiner noted that "the completion of the data transformation" lacked antecedent basis. Applicant has amended claims 10, 16, and 20 to replace "contributes to the completion of' with "completed" (as a verb), consistent with Paragraph [0071]. This removes the antecedent issue associated with the noun "completion."’
In view of the aforementioned amendment, the associated previously presented rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant on page 10 argues: ‘Claim 12 ("That is/are"): The Examiner objected to the grammar in "uops ... that is". Applicant has amended claim 12 to "uops ... that are".’
In view of the aforementioned amendment, the associated previously presented objection is withdrawn.
Applicant on page 10 argues: ‘The Examiner rejected claim 15 as indefinite regarding the phrase "decrementing... as subsequent load uops complete". Applicant has amended claim 15 to recite "adjusting the write counter... as subsequent load uops complete".’
In view of the aforementioned amendment, the associated previously presented rejection is withdrawn. However, Examiner notes that claim 16 still recites “decremented” language in line 2.
Applicant on page 10 argues: ‘The Examiner noted the missing preposition in "track a number write data". Applicant has amended Claim 17 to "track a number of write data."’
In view of the aforementioned amendment, the associated previously presented rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant on page 10 argues: ‘As noted in the § 112(a) section above, "designated" has been replaced with "expected to," which also resolves the § 112(b) concern regarding the clarity of who designates.’
In view of the aforementioned amendment, the associated previously presented rejection is withdrawn, although an analogous rejection is presented in view of the new claim language, as it is likewise unclear as to what, or who, is expecting.
Applicant on page 10 argues: ‘The Examiner noted an antecedent basis issue for "the data transformation". Applicant has removed this language.’
In view of the aforementioned amendment, the associated previously presented rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant on page 10 argues: ‘The Examiner noted ambiguity regarding "the number of remaining segmented load uops", referring to "a number of remaining segmented load uops" from claim 17.’
In view of an associated amendment in claim 18, the associated previously presented rejection is 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
Prosecution Insights