DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not sufficiently descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The examiner recommends inserting --INSTRUCTION FOR-- at the beginning of the title, and inserting --CAPABILITY-- before “ENUMERATION”.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following minor informalities:
In the 3rd to last line, delete “the” after “return”.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The amended disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 113, line 2, delete “each”.
Paragraph 218 includes examples that are substantial duplicates of the claims. Please correct as the claims are corrected in response to any objection or 112 rejection set forth below or in a previous office action.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
It appears that, based on paragraph 113, FIG.7 should be designated by a legend such as
--Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated, i.e., applicant explains that FIG.7 shows the operation of a legacy CPUID instruction with leaf 0xA. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
The replacement FIGs are objected to for failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1) and 37 CFR 1.84(l), which requires the drawings be in black, and that all drawings be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, solid black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. While the boxes, ovals, and arrows are in black, all text is not in black, even if the source drawings in the pdf appear black to the naked eye. This cannot be confirmed with certainty since the examiner does not have access to applicant’s submitted pdf file. However, it is the examiner’s experience that pixelation usually occurs when black is not being used. In such a case, the dithering used to convert applicant's grayscale image to black and white will add white pixels to try to estimate applicant's "gray" color, and the final drawings may not print properly or may print with reduced quality. Therefore, applicant must be sure to use only black and white. Applicant may perform the following process to correct the color content:
1. Open the drawings PDF file with Adobe Acrobat Pro DC (a similar Adobe product may work, but the examiner has only tested this in Adobe Acrobat Pro DC);
2. Click “File” and then click “Print”;
3. Select “Adobe PDF” as the printer. If not available, “Microsoft Print to PDF” may also work, though this has not been tested. If neither option is available, this process may not be applicable, and applicant should try to find an alternate way to print in only black and white.
4. Uncheck “Print in grayscale (black and white)”;
5. Uncheck “Save ink/toner”;
6. Click “Advanced”;
7. Under “Color Management”, for the “Color Profile” field, select “Black & White” near the bottom of the list. The examiner also had “Treat grays as K-only grays” checked, and “Preserve Black” checked.
8. Click “OK” and then click “Print”. The resulting PDF should comprise only black and white drawings. Please review the final drawings for potential unintended consequences of this process.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) and/or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Delete “enumerated”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cloutier, “CPUID - CPU Identification”.
Referring to claim 1, Cloutier has taught an apparatus (p.1, “processor”) comprising:
decoder circuitry to decode an instance of a single instruction, the single instruction to include a field for an opcode (a processor necessarily includes decoder circuitry to decode instructions to determine the operations to perform. One such instruction is the CPUID instruction, which has an opcode field as shown at the top of p.1); and
execution circuitry to execute the decoded instruction according to the opcode (a processor necessarily includes execution circuitry to execute decoded instructions) to return processor identification and feature information including an enumeration of heterogenous performance monitoring unit capabilities (from p.5, execution of CPUID with EAX=0AH, causes various information to be returned, including performance monitoring version ID (processor identification), number of general-purpose counters per logical processor, number of fixed-function counters, and indications of particular events (e.g. “instruction retired” event) Thus, the returned information is that for heterogenous (different) capabilities).
Referring to claim 3, Cloutier has taught the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the heterogenous performance monitoring unit capabilities include an indication of valid sub-leaves (under a first interpretation, a sub-leaf is interpreted as a species of a genus. From p.5, where EAX=0AH, CPUID returns whether event sub-leaves (core cycle event, instruction retired event, last-level cache reference event, etc.) are valid, where the sub-leaves are under the same event genus).
Referring to claim 4, Cloutier has taught the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the heterogenous performance monitoring unit capabilities include an indication of supported general-purpose counters (again, see p.5, where EAX=0AH).
Referring to claim 5, Cloutier has taught the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the heterogenous performance monitoring unit capabilities include an indication of supported fixed-function counters (again, see p.5, where EAX=0AH).
Referring to claim 6, Cloutier has taught the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the heterogenous performance monitoring unit capabilities include an indication of supported performance monitor events (again, see p.5, where EAX=0AH).
Referring to claim 7, Cloutier has taught the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the opcode is OF A2 (see the top of p.1).
Claims 8 and 10-14 are rejected for similar reasoning as claims 1 and 3-7, respectively.
Claim 15 is mostly rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1. Cloutier has further taught a system comprising: memory to store an instance of a single instruction (p.19 refers to instruction cache where instructions are stored and fetched from); and a processor core including the claimed circuitry (again, from p.1, Cloutier refers to a processor, i.e., processor core, which would execute the CPUID instruction).
Claims 17-20 are rejected for similar reasoning as claims 3-6, respectively.
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.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cloutier.
Referring to claim 2, Cloutier has taught the apparatus of claim 1, but has not taught wherein the performance monitoring unit capabilities are enumerated using a leaf at EAX=23H. Instead, Cloutier has taught that the leaf is at EAX=0AH (p.5). However, the choice of the binary value corresponding to the leaf is not deemed to be a patentable distinction and amounts to a design choice. Any leaf could be assigned to any binary value in Cloutier and CPUID would work the same. As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cloutier such that the performance monitoring unit's capabilities are enumerated using a leaf at EAX=23H.
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected for similar reasoning as claim 2.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cloutier in view of Weissmann et al. (US 2021/0240475 A1).
Referring to claim 3, Cloutier has taught the apparatus of claim 1, but has not taught wherein the heterogenous performance monitoring unit capabilities include an indication of valid sub-leaves, when sub-leaves are alternatively interpreted as a secondary identifier for a CPUID instruction. However, Weissmann has taught that a secondary identifier (ECX=0) could be used in combination with EAX to return information on which sub-leaves are valid for that leaf (paragraph [0121]). One would’ve been motivated to include such an option in Cloutier to inform a user of the different options to return different information for leaf EAX=0AH. Even if multiple sub-leaves do not exist for this leaf, the ability for a user to determine this by returning subleaves available for the leaf is informational and, thus, beneficial. Alternatively, or in addition, one would be motivated to implement multiple sub-leaves for leaf EAX=0AH so as to provide more information related to performance monitoring and allow for increased flexibility is determining which information to return with improved organization or at a finer granularity (e.g. one might choose to see information at leaf 0AH, subleaf 0, or instead information at leaf 0AH, subleaf 1). As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cloutier such that the heterogenous performance monitoring unit capabilities include an indication of valid sub-leaves.
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected for similar reasoning as claim 3.
Response to Arguments
On page 11 of applicant’s response, applicant argues that neither the title nor the abstract needs correction.
The examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that the abstract includes a basis issue and that the title is not sufficiently descriptive.
On page 11 of applicant’s response, applicant argues that FIG.7 represents software that can be used in the software of FIG.8.
This is not persuasive. That FIG.7 can be used in current software does not mean it is not prior art. Applicant describes FIG.7 as performing queries using a legacy (i.e., old/prior art) CPUID leaf. Thus, it appears this is prior art operation and should be labeled as such.
On page 12 of applicant’s response, applicant argues that the office action literally cites leaf OxA, which the specification distinguishes from, and which, when read, the lowest number of counters for the cores is received from each core. Applicant states that the same counter number from each core is not the same as heterogenous PMU capabilities.
The examiner has cited operation associated with leaf 0xA because applicant’s claim reads on operation associated with leaf 0xA. Even if the disclosed invention distinguishes from 0xA operation, the claimed invention is not distinguished therefrom. As such, the rejection is maintained. Also, the examiner is not asserting that the same counter number from each core corresponds to the heterogenous capabilities. Instead, the returned information includes number of general-purpose counters per logical processor, number of fixed-function counters, and indications of particular events (e.g. “instruction retired” event). This is heterogenous capability information (the registers are different from the fixed-function counters which are different from events, etc.).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David J. Huisman whose telephone number is 571-272-4168. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5:30 pm.
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.
/David J. Huisman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183
Prosecution Insights