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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 12, 2025, has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this office action and presented for examination. Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-15, and 17-20 are newly amended by the RCE received November 12, 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, 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. However, the drawings in the file wrapper (particularly, but not limited to, FIG. 8 and 9) do not meet this requirement — see, for example, the array of white dots that causes the lines, text, and numbers to appear fuzzy and blurry. For example, see the “2nd” in FIG. 8, step S422-2. For example, see “Hit” in FIG. 9, block 123-1. This may be caused by dithering being applied when a conversion from greyscale to black has taken place. Examiner notes that aspects of the instant drawings, such as the figure numbers and “REPLACEMENT SHEET” text, do not appear to have any reproduction quality issues, and thus dithering may have been performed after the content of the figures had been saved but before the figure labels were applied.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 17, line 9, “the fetched two instructions” should be “the two fetched instructions” for antecedent basis clarity and consistency with, for example, claim 17, line 3; claim 17, line 5; claim 17, lines 10-11; claim 18, line 2; claim 18, line 5; and claim 18, line 7.
Claim 18 is objected to for failing to alleviate the objection of claim 17 above.
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 11-20 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 11 recites the limitation “executing at least one of the decoded multiple-issued instructions” in line 10. However, the original disclosure does not appear to provide support for this limitation. For example, the original disclosure (e.g., FIG. 8) does not appear to provide support for executing only one of the decoded multiple-issued instructions, which is a scenario encompassed by the claim language in view of the “at least one” language.
Claims 12-20 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejection of claim 11 above.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the determining whether to multiple-issue comprises: reading the tag information from a position of the buffer corresponding to a PC value of the first instruction, among the plurality of fetched instructions” in lines 6-8. However, the original disclosure does not appear to provide support for this limitation. For example, the original disclosure (e.g., FIG. 7, paragraph [0080]) does not appear to provide support for the aforementioned determining comprising the aforementioned reading.
Claims 15-18 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejection of claim 14 above.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the determining whether to multiple-issue comprises: single-issuing the first instruction, among the plurality of fetched instructions, when the first instruction among the stalled multiple-issued instructions is identified as not causing the stall, based on the identification information matched with the read tag information” in lines 2-6. However, the original disclosure does not appear to provide support for this limitation. For example, the original disclosure (e.g., paragraph [0068]) does not appear to provide support for the aforementioned determining comprising the aforementioned single-issuing.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the determining whether to multiple-issue comprises: determining whether there is dependency between the two fetched instructions when the first instruction, among the plurality of stalled multiple-issued instructions is identified as causing the stall, based on the identification information matched with the read tag information; and single-issuing a second instruction of the fetched two instructions when a result of the determining whether there is dependency is that there is no dependency between the two fetched instructions” in lines 5-11. However, the original disclosure does not appear to provide support for this limitation. For example, the original disclosure (e.g., paragraph [0068]) does not appear to provide support for the aforementioned determining comprising the aforementioned single-issuing.
Claim 18 is rejected for failing to alleviate the rejection of claim 17 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 1-20 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 “a control circuit configured to fetch a plurality of instructions together, to determine whether to multiple-issue the plurality of fetched instructions, to decode multiple-issued instructions based on the determination” in lines 2-4. Claim 1 further recites the limitation “a buffer configured to store stall history information on the multiple-issued instructions when the decoded multiple-issued instructions are stalled due to the data hazard, wherein the control circuit determines whether to multiple-issue the plurality of fetched instructions, based on the stall history information of the buffer” in lines 10-13. On one hand, the former limitation appears to convey that determining whether to multiple-issue the plurality of fetched instructions occurs before decoding multiple-issued instructions (in view of the “based on the determination” language). On the other hand, the latter limitation appears to convey that determining whether to multiple-issue the plurality of fetched instruction occurs after decoding multiple-issued instructions (since “determining whether to multiple-issue the plurality of fetched instruction” is based on “the stall history information of the buffer”, which is stored when the decoded multiple-issued instructions are stalled). Therefore, it is indefinite as to whether determining whether to multiple-issue the plurality of fetched instructions occurs before, or after, decoding multiple-issued instructions.
Claims 2-10 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the stall” in line 4. However, it is indefinite as to whether this stall is referring to a stall of, for example, claim 1, line 5, or a stall of, for example, claim 2, line 2. Note that this limitation is also recited in claim 3, line 5; claim 6, line 4; and claim 7, line 6.
Claims 3-8 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejection of claim 2 above.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a relatively preceding PC value” in line 3. However, it is indefinite as to whether this PC value is the same as, or different from, “a program counter (PC) value” of claim 3, line 2.
Claims 4-8 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejection of claim 3 above.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "a first instruction among the plurality of fetched instructions" in line 6. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, on one hand, instant paragraph [0019] discloses 'It will be understood that the terms "first," "second," "third," etc. are used herein to distinguish one element from another, and the elements are not limited by these terms. Thus, a "first" element in an example embodiment may be described as a "second" element in another example embodiment.' On the other hand, instant paragraph [0046] discloses "The first instruction refers to an instruction, having a relatively preceding PC value, of the two instructions". Therefore, it is indefinite as to the manner by which the "first" language does or does not limit the recited instruction. Note that "the first instruction, among the plurality of fetched instructions” is recited in claim 4, lines 8-9; claim 5, lines 5-6; claim 5, line 9; and claim 6, lines 2-3. Note that “the first instruction of the two fetched instruction” is recited in claim 8, lines 3-4. Note that "a second instruction" is recited in claim 7, line 7. Note that “the second instruction” is recited in claim 8, line 2; and claim 8, line 4.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the PC value in the read tag information” in lines 7-8. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 5-8 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 4 above.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the PC value of the read tag information” in lines 4-5. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the hazard information matched with the read tag information” in lines 7-8. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Note that this limitation is also recited in claim 6, lines 4-5; and claim 7, lines 6-7.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “when the read tag information matches the PC value of the first instruction, among the plurality of fetched instructions” in lines 8-9. Claim 3, upon which claim 5 is indirectly dependent, recites the limitation “the tag information comprises a program counter (PC) value of a first instruction” in line 2. However, in a scenario in which the read tag information includes both a PC value and another distinct element, which is a scenario encompassed by the limitation in view of the open-ended “comprises” language, it is indefinite as to how both a PC value and another distinct element can collectively match a PC value.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “determine whether to multiple-issue the plurality of fetched instructions, based on the hazard information matched with the read tag information, when the read tag information matches the PC value of the first instruction, among the plurality of fetched instructions” in lines 7-9. However, the disclosure (e.g., FIG. 8) does not appear to show a determination of whether to multiple-issue based on hazard information when a buffer hit occurs. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. Therefore, because the aforementioned limitation appears to conflict with the specification in the manner explained above, the claim is indefinite.
Claims 6-8 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 5 above.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “dependency” in line 3. However, it is indefinite as to whether this dependency is the same as, or different from, the dependency recited in claim 7, line 4, and the dependency recited in claim 5, line 4.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “[t]he processor of claim 1, wherein the control circuit comprises: … a decoder configured to decode the multiple-issued instructions issued by the pre-decoder” in lines 1-8. Claim 1, upon which claim 9 is dependent, recites the limitation “a control circuit configured … to decode multiple-issued instructions based on the determination” in lines 2-4. It is indefinite as to whether claim 9 is broadening the scope of claim 1, due to the lack of “based on the determination” in claim 9.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the decoder updates the stall history information stored in the buffer when the decoded multiple-issued instructions are stalled” in lines 10-11. Claim 1, upon which claim 9 is dependent, recites the limitation “a buffer configured to store stall history information on the multiple-issued instructions when the decoded multiple-issued instructions are stalled due to the data hazard” in lines 10-11. Therefore, it is indefinite as to whether the stall history information is stored, or updated, when the decoded multiple-issued instructions are stalled.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the decoder updates the stall history information stored in the buffer when the decoded multiple-issued instructions are stalled” in lines 10-11. Claim 1, upon which claim 9 is dependent, recites the limitation “a buffer configured to store stall history information on the multiple-issued instructions when the decoded multiple-issued instructions are stalled due to the data hazard” in lines 10-11. It is indefinite as to whether claim 9 is broadening the scope of claim 1, due to the lack of “due to the data hazard” in claim 9.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the pre-decoder determines whether to multiple-issue the plurality of fetched instructions, based on the updated stall history information of the buffer” in lines 12-13. Claim 1, upon which claim 9 is dependent, recites the limitation “the control circuit determines whether to multiple-issue the plurality of fetched instructions, based on the stall history information of the buffer” in lines 12-13. Therefore, it is unclear as to whether the determination of whether to multiple-issue the plurality of fetched instructions is based on the stall history information of the buffer, or the updated stall history information of the buffer.
Claim 10 is rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 9 above.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “The processor of claim 9, wherein the decoder is further configured to: determine whether to stall the decoded multiple-issued instructions due to the data hazard” in lines 1-4. Claim 9, upon which claim 10 is dependent, recites the limitation “a decoder configured … to determine whether the decoded multiple-issued instructions are stalled due to the data hazard” in lines 7-9. However, it is indefinite as to whether the decoder both “determine[s] whether to stall the decoded multiple-issued instructions due to the data hazard” and “determine[s] whether the decoded multiple-issued instructions are stalled due to the data hazard” as separate functionality. In other words, it is unclear as to whether the decoder itself performs the stalling, or whether the decoder determines that stalling has occurred, or both.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a relatively preceding PC value” in line 7. However, it is indefinite as to whether this PC value is the same as, or different from, “a program counter (PC) value” of claim 10, lines 6-7.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “when the multiple-issued instructions are stalled by at least one of the multiple-issued instructions” in lines 8-9. However, it is unclear as to whether the aforementioned stalling is referring to the stalling of the “decoded” multiple-issued instructions, as recited in, for example, claim 1, line 5; claim 1, line 11, and claim 9, line 8.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “determine whether to stall the decoded multiple-issued instructions due to the data hazard, based on whether there is a dependency between the decoded multiple-issued instructions and instructions which are being executed by the execution circuit; and update the stall history information stored in the buffer using a program counter (PC) value of a first instruction having a relatively preceding PC value, among the multiple-issued instructions, and identification information of an instruction causing the stall when the multiple- issued instructions are stalled by at least one of the multiple-issued instructions” in lines 3-9. Claim 1, upon which claim 10 is dependent, recites the limitation “a buffer configured to store stall history information on the multiple-issued instructions when the decoded multiple-issued instructions are stalled due to the data hazard” in lines 10-11. Therefore, it is indefinite as to whether the stall history information is stored, or updated, or both, when the decoded multiple-issued instructions are stalled.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “fetching a plurality of instructions together; determining whether to multiple-issue the plurality of fetched instructions … decoding multiple-issued instructions based on the determination” in lines 3-7. Claim 11 further recites the limitation “a buffer configured to store stall history information on the multiple-issued instructions when the decoded multiple-issued instructions are stalled due to the data hazard, and the determining whether to multiple-issue comprises determining whether to multiple-issue the plurality of fetched instructions, based on the stall history information of the buffer” in lines 12-17. On one hand, the former limitation appears to convey that determining whether to multiple-issue the plurality of fetched instructions occurs before decoding multiple-issued instructions (in view of the “based on the determination” language). On the other hand, the latter limitation appears to convey that determining whether to multiple-issue the plurality of fetched instruction occurs after decoding multiple-issued instructions (since “determining whether to multiple-issue the plurality of fetched instructions” is based on “the stall history information of the buffer”, which is stored when the decoded multiple-issued instructions are stalled). Therefore, it is indefinite as to whether determining whether to multiple-issue the plurality of fetched instructions occurs before, or after, decoding multiple-issued instructions.
Claims 12-20 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejection of claim 11 above.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the stalled multiple-issued instructions” in lines 2-3. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. In addition, it is indefinite as to whether this limitation is intended to refer to previously recited decoded multiple-issued instructions that have been determined to be stalled, or stalled multiple-issued instructions that have not been previously recited. Note that this limitation is also recited in claim 12, lines 3-4; claim 13, line 3; claim 13, lines 4-5; claim 14, line 3; and claim 16, line 4. Note that “the plurality of stalled multiple-issued instructions” is recited in claim 17, line 6. Note that “the stall” is recited in claim 12, line 4; claim 13, line 5; claim 16, line 5; and claim 17, line 7.
Claims 13-18 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejection of claim 12 above.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a relatively preceding PC value” in line 3. However, it is indefinite as to whether this PC value is the same as, or different from, “a program counter (PC) value” of claim 13, line 2.
Claims 14-18 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejection of claim 13 above.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the first instruction, among the plurality of fetched instructions" in line 8. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, on one hand, instant paragraph [0019] discloses 'It will be understood that the terms "first," "second," "third," etc. are used herein to distinguish one element from another, and the elements are not limited by these terms. Thus, a "first" element in an example embodiment may be described as a "second" element in another example embodiment.' On the other hand, instant paragraph [0046] discloses "The first instruction refers to an instruction, having a relatively preceding PC value, of the two instructions". Therefore, it is indefinite as to the manner by which the "first" language does or does not limit the recited instruction. Note that "the first instruction, among the plurality of fetched instructions” is recited in claim 14, lines 10-11; claim 15, lines 5-6; claim 15, lines 9-10; and claim 16, line 3. Note that “the first instruction of the two fetched instructions” is recited in claim 18, lines 4-5. Note "a second instruction" is recited in claim 17, line 9; and claim 18, line 6.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the first instruction, among the plurality of fetched instructions” in line 8. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Note that "the first instruction, among the plurality of fetched instructions” is further recited in claim 14, lines 10-11; claim 15, lines 5-6; claim 15, lines 9-10; and claim 16, line 3. Note that “the first instruction of the two fetched instructions” is recited in claim 18, lines 4-5.
Claims 15-18 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 14 above.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “when the read tag information matches the PC value of the first instruction, among the plurality of fetched instructions” in lines 8-10. Claim 13, upon which claim 15 is indirectly dependent, recites the limitation “the tag information comprises a program counter (PC) value of a first instruction” in line 2. However, in a scenario in which the read tag information includes both a PC value and another distinct element, which is a scenario encompassed by the limitation in view of the open-ended “comprises” language, it is indefinite as to how both a PC value and another distinct element can collectively match a PC value.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “determining whether to multiple-issue the plurality of fetched instructions, based on the identification information matched with the read tag information, when the read tag information matches the PC value of the first instruction, among the plurality of fetched instructions” in lines 7-10. However, the disclosure (e.g., FIG. 8) does not appear to show a determination of whether to multiple-issue based on hazard information when a buffer hit occurs. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. Therefore, because the aforementioned limitation appears to conflict with the specification in the manner explained above, the claim is indefinite.
Claims 16-18 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 15 above.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the determining whether to multiple-issue comprises: single-issuing the first instruction, among the plurality of fetched instructions, when the first instruction among the stalled multiple-issued instructions is identified as not causing the stall, based on the identification information matched with the read tag information” in lines 2-6. Claim 11, upon which claim 16 is indirectly dependent, recites the limitation “determining whether to multiple-issue the plurality of fetched instructions … decoding multiple-issued instructions based on the determination, determining whether the decoded multiple-issued instructions are stalled due to a data hazard” in lines 4-9. Claim 16 appears to convey that identification of whether the first instruction among the stalled multiple-issued instructions caused the stall occurs before issuing the first instruction among the plurality of fetched instructions; however, the aforementioned limitation of claim 11 appears to convey that determining whether the decoded multiple-issued instructions are stalled occurs after determining whether to multiple-issue the plurality of fetched instructions. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 16 in the context of claim 11 are indefinite, with respect to whether identification of whether the first instruction among the stalled multiple-issued instructions caused the stall occurs before, or after, issuing the first instruction among the plurality of fetched instructions.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the determining whether to multiple-issue comprises: single-issuing the first instruction, among the plurality of fetched instructions, when the first instruction among the stalled multiple-issued instructions is identified as not causing the stall, based on the identification information matched with the read tag information” in lines 2-6. However, it is indefinite as to how the aforementioned step of determining can comprise the single-issuing itself.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the plurality of stalled multiple-issued instructions” in line 6. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “determining whether there is dependency between the two fetched instructions when the first instruction, among the plurality of stalled multiple-issued instructions is identified as causing the stall, based on the identification information matched with the read tag information” in lines 5-8. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are grammatically indefinite, at least in part in view of the comma prior to “among”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the determining whether to multiple-issue comprises: determining whether there is dependency between the two fetched instructions when the first instruction, among the plurality of stalled multiple-issued instructions is identified as causing the stall, based on the identification information matched with the read tag information; and single-issuing a second instruction of the fetched two instructions when a result of the determining whether there is dependency is that there is no dependency between the two fetched instructions” in lines 4-11. However, it is indefinite as to how the aforementioned step of determining can comprise the single-issuing itself.
Claim 18 is rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 17 above.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the two fetched instruction” in line 2. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the determining whether to stall” in lines 1-2. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the determining whether to stall comprises: determining whether the decoded multiple-issued instructions are stalled” in lines 1-3. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, it is indefinite as to how a determination of “whether” to stall decoded multiple-issued instructions can comprise determining whether the decoded multiple-issued instructions “are stalled”.
Claim 20 is rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 19 above.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “a relatively preceding PC value” in line 6. However, it is indefinite as to whether this PC value is the same as, or different from, “a program counter (PC) value” of claim 20, lines 2-3.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the stall of the multiple-issued instructions” in line 4. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “when the multiple-issued instructions are stalled by at least one of the multiple-issued instructions” in lines 4-5. However, it is unclear as to whether the aforementioned stalling is referring to the stalling of the “decoded” multiple-issued instructions, as recited in, for example, claim 11, line 8; claim 11, line 13; and claim 19, line 3.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “updating the stall history information stored in the buffer using a program counter (PC) value of a first instruction of the multiple-issued instructions” in lines 2-3. Claim 11, upon which claim 20 is indirectly dependent, recites the limitation “a buffer configured to store stall history information on the multiple-issued instructions when the decoded multiple-issued instructions are stalled due to the data hazard” in lines 12-14. Therefore, it is indefinite as to whether the stall history information is stored, or updated, or both, when the decoded multiple-issued instructions are stalled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant on page 10 conveys: “The Advisory Action indicates that while the claims amendments from October 20, 2025, have not been entered, the objections to drawings and claims would have otherwise been overcome”.
Examiner generally notes that the advisory action conveyed “While the overall amendment is not being entered in view of the reason set forth in the note associated with box 3, Examiner notes that the objection set forth in paragraph 3b of the previous office action would have otherwise been overcome. However, the objections set forth in paragraph 3a and 3c of the previous office action would have nevertheless remained applicable.
Applicant on page 10 argues: "Claims 17 and 20 have been amended in accordance with the Examiner's suggestions. Withdrawal of the objections is requested in view of the amendments."
In view of the aforementioned amendments, the previously presented objections to the claims are withdrawn.
Applicant on page 11 argues: "Replacement sheets with corrected FIGS. 1-9 are being submitted herewith. Withdrawal of the objection is respectfully requested in view of the replacement sheet."
In view of the aforementioned replacement sheets, the objections set forth in paragraphs 3b and 3c of the office action dated August 19, 2025, are overcome. However, the objection set forth in paragraph 3a of the aforementioned office action appears to remain applicable — see the drawings section above.
Applicant on page 11 argues: ‘The Examiner contends that the specification does not support the recitation "determine whether to stall the decoded multiple-issued instructions," in claim 1. Claim 1 has been amended to clarify the subject matter, which is supported in the specification at, e.g., [0070] of the published application.’
In view of the aforementioned amendment, the associated previously presented written description rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant on page 11 argues: ‘The Examiner further contends that the recitation of "multiple-issuing the plurality of fetched instructions indicates issuing more than one of the plurality of fetched instructions together," in claim 1 is not disclosed in the specification. Applicant directs the Examiner to paragraph [0026] of the published application regarding this recitation.’
In view of the aforementioned amendment, the associated previously presented written description rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant on page 11 argues: ‘As to the contention that the recitation of "decoder configured to ...determine whether to stall the decoded multiple-issued instructions," in claim 9, Applicant notes that claim 9 has been amended similarly to claim 1 and the corresponding recitation is similarly supported in the specification.’
In view of the aforementioned amendment, the associated previously presented written description rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant on page 11 argues: 'With respect to claim 11, the Examiner contends that the recitation of "executing at least one of the decoded multiple-issued instructions," is not supported in the specification. Applicant directs the Examiner to paragraph [0101] and [0118], which disclose executing one of the decoded multiple-issued instructions.'
However, paragraph [0101] appears to be directed to steps 422-1, 422-2, and 422-5, Examiner notes that the "multiple-issue" scenario (step S423 in Figure 8) appears to be distinct from the aforementioned steps. In addition, while paragraph [00118] discloses an instruction without occurrence of a stall may be separately issued and executed in advance, this scenario does not appear to fall under the "decoded multiple-issued instructions" scenario. Examiner further notes that Figure 8, for example, does not appear to provide support for only executing the first or second instruction (but not executing the second or first instruction respectively), as the second or first instruction respectively would presumably be executed after data of a data dependency is available.
Applicant on page 11 argues: ‘With respect to claim 14, the Examiner contends that the recitation of "determining whether to multiple-issue comprises reading the tag information . ..," is not supported in the specification. Applicant directs the Examiner to paragraph [0050] of the published application which explicitly discloses that the control unit may read tag information from a position of the buffer corresponding to a PC value of the first instruction.'
However, while paragraph [0050] indeed discloses that the control unit may read tag information from a position of the buffer corresponding to a PC value of the first instruction, paragraph [0050] does not appear to convey that such reading is a substep encompassed by the overall step of "determining whether to multiple-issue".
Applicant across pages 10-11 argues: "Similarly, Applicant directs the Examiner to paragraphs [0084-85] for support for the contended recitation in claim 16, and to paragraph [0086] for support for the recitation in claim 17."
However, similarly, paragraphs [0084-85] does not appear to convey that the disclosed single-issuing is a sub-step encompassed by the overall step of the recited determining. Similarly, paragraph [0086] does not appear to convey that the disclosed single-issuing is a sub-step encompassed by the overall step of the recited determining.
Applicant across pages 12 argues: "With respect to claim 1, the Examiner contends that it is unclear whether determining whether to multiple-issue the plurality of fetched instructions occurs before, or after, decoding the multiple-issued instructions. Applicant directs the Examiner to paragraphs [0067-70] (published application) and FIG. 5 of the present specification, and notes that the claimed method involves a two-step process in which a pre-decoder first determines whether to multiple-issue instructions before the instructions are decoded, and the decoded instructions are again checked for dependency and/or stall due to data hazard to determine whether to multiple-issue the decoded instructions. In other words, the corresponding recitation is not indefinite, and is properly supported in the specification. The amendment also resolves the purported indefiniteness issue relating to claim 6."
However, Applicant’s explanation appears to convey that there is a determination of whether to multiple-issue instructions before those instructions are decoded (“determines whether to multiple-issue instructions before the instructions are decoded”) and a determination of whether to multiple-issue those same instructions after those same instructions are decoded (“he decoded instructions are again checked for dependency and/or stall due to data hazard to determine whether to multiple-issue the decoded instructions”). Therefore, Examiner submits that Applicant’s citation and explanation do not shed light on whether determining whether to multiple-issue the plurality of fetched instructions occurs before, or after, decoding the multiple-issued instructions. Examiner notes that Applicant does not appear to specify whether the limitation is intended to convey the “before” case or the “after” case.
Applicant on page 11 argues: 'The Examiner further asserts that the recitation in claim 1 of "stall the decoded multiple-issued instructions," is indefinite. The corresponding recitation has been amended to clarify the subject matter. The amended claim is clear as written. The rejection of claims 2-10 related to this issue are moot in view of amended claim 1.'
In view of the amendments to the claims, the aforementioned previously presented indefinite rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant on page 11 argues: 'With respect to the Examiner's contention regarding the interpretation of the term "first" in claims 3, 10, 13 and 20, Applicant notes that in the specific case of claim 3, and the disclosure in paragraph [0046], the context clearly indicates that in the term "first instruction," "first" is indeed limiting. In other words, in the context of the disclosure at [0046], the term "first instruction," indicates a temporally or numerically first instruction as the plain meaning of the term indicates. Same argument is applicable to claims 4-8.'
However, Examiner submits that paragraph [0019], as cited, in characterizing "first" and "second" in a different manner, precludes the above argued interpretation from being clearly the case. Examiner notes that, in view of an amendment in claim 3, the associated previously presented rejection of claim 3 is withdrawn.
Applicant on page 11 argues: 'Claim 4 has been amended to clarify that the determination of "whether to multiple-issue the plurality of fetched instructions," is "based on whether the PC value in the read tag information matches the PC value of the first instruction, among the plurality of fetched instructions." The purported indefiniteness of claims 4-8 is, therefore, rendered moot.'
In view of the aforementioned amendment, the associated previously presented rejection of claim 4 is withdrawn.
Applicant on page 12 argues: 'Likewise, the amendments to claim 8, clarify the claimed subject matter and render the corresponding indefiniteness argument moot. Specifically, the recitation of "two instructions," in claim 8 has been amended to "the two fetched instructions," which are recited in claim 7 (from which claim 8 depends).'
In view of the aforementioned amendments, the associated previously presented indefinite rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant on page 13 argues: “With respect to claim 9, as discussed herein with respect to claim 1, and with reference to FIG. 5 of the present disclosure, the buffer stores the stall history, and the stall history is updated based on whether the decoded multiple-issued instructions are stalled due to data hazard. The claim is, therefore, clear as written.”
However, while claim 9 is newly amended to recite “updated” in line 13, Examiner submits that indefiniteness remains due to claim 9 being dependent on claim 1, which does not recite updating in the same context of determining whether to multiple-issue the plurality of fetched instructions.
Applicant on page 13 argues: "With respect to claim 10, the Examiner contends that it is indefinite as to whether an instruction causing the stall is an instruction producing the data involved in the data hazard, or an instruction consuming data involved in a data hazard. Applicant notes that in the context of the claimed subject matter, the stall may be caused by either of the reasons - what matters is that an instruction is causing the stall due to a data hazard - and that the claim scope includes both instances. Applicant further notes that breadth of the claim does not equate to indefiniteness."
In view of associated amendments and Applicant’s arguments, the aforementioned previously presented indefinite rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant on page 13 argues: “The issues relating to purported indefiniteness of claims 11-20 are similar to that of claims 1-10. Amendments to claims 11-20 are similar to those of claims 1-10. Consequently, for at least the same reasons discussed herein with respect to claims 1-10 discussed herein, withdrawal of the rejection of claims 11-20 is respectfully requested.”
In the instances where relevant claim language of claims 11-20 is analogous to claim language of claims 1-10 addressed above, Examiner’s responses to arguments above are likewise applicable to the arguments directed to the aforementioned further claims.
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